No; it’s because that’s what cops say when they shoot people: “I thought he had a gun.” “I thought I saw a gun.” “I thought he was reaching for a gun.”
The very thought of a gun is enough to provoke and enable a cop to shoot someone; why would ordinary citizens be held to a higher standard?
As someone who grew up and spent most of his life around guns in Texas, I also find this pretty laughable. It’s like arguing that if large numbers of people started walking around with lightning rods, it’s just because of their fashion sense, not an irrational fear of lightning. Just because the rod carriers have convinced each other of that doesn’t make it so to an outside observer.
I can’t believe that anyone denies that the purpose of people showing up at a BLM protest/expected riot/whatever carrying an AR-15 in their hands, is intending to intimidate people on the other side with their instantaneous access to overwhelming lethal force.
It is different from ranchers wearing holstered handguns on their trip to the feed store.
I’ve lived in rural areas, in open carry states. I’ve shot rifles and handled other firearms. I would certainly notice a person carrying a rifle slung over their shoulder where I live now. Yes, I’ve seen people carry like Rittenhouse did as part of a protest. If I were present, I would get out of there. Nothing is guaranteed to go wrong, but it’s more likely, in my opinion, and if it does, it could go horribly horribly wrong, on a large scale.
Do you think that the protesters openly carrying weapons were also ‘intending to intimidate people on the other side with their instantaneous access to overwhelming lethal force’ as well? If so, while I disagree, at least you will be consistent. Personally, I think people bring firearms to these things just in case things do go sideways, not to try and intimidate the other side.
I also agree it’s foolish and stupid, and the fact that both sides do it doesn’t make it right. I also agree with you here:
While I have seen people open carry and am not going to go screaming in fear or charge them in rage just because they are carrying, if it’s at a highly charged protest such as this and I see someone openly carrying, it doesn’t matter which side they are on I want to be as far away from them as I can. It’s a matter of trust…I don’t know these folks or know what training they have in firearms handling and safety, and the very fact they are carrying a gun to such an event really says a lot about their judgment…IMHO and all.
“I have a firearm; don’t fuck with us” is the message, right?
I would think so, if anyone had been carrying like Rittenhouse was. I have not heard reports of that – only of holstered or concealed handguns.
The people I’ve seen on the left(ish) carrying at other events in a manner similar to Rittenhouse have, in my opinion, the exact same intention, with sometimes a side of “sauce for the goose…”
That is not true. If so, cops would be moving people down in Walmarts in open carry states like grain.
The gun is only if the person is acting aggressively or in a manner that the officer feels is a clear and present danger.
That is absolutely wrong; we have a whole thread devoted to controversial encounters between law enforcement and civilians and the thread has recorded such incidents. They do happen.
For the majority involved, the firearms were just toys. Just part of their costume while role playing. Which is perhaps why you and others do not find them intimidating.
If they do carry them in case things go sideways, it could indeed go horribly wrong.
[quote=“XT, post:1621, topic:953798”]
See, I think this is where the disconnect really is at. To many in this thread, a gun, seemingly, is an automatic fear response and direct and open threat. My guess is because most of those saying this either don’t live in the US, or live in parts of the US where open carry isn’t common or perhaps even allowed at all. To those who do live in open carry states and who are familiar with open carry, they don’t see it the same way. [/quote]
I grew up where hunting was normal, half the kids in high school with a pickup had a gun rack, and most kids took gun safety classes. But I don’t live in an open carry State and really have no desire to even visit one.
While it may be legal in an open carry State to go grocery shopping with an AR style firearm in combat ready, can’t you understand why it may make some folks concerned? That isn’t normal behavior, and should never be.
The photo above was to highlight that having black people walk around with firearms in a combat ready stance might be a tad hypocritical. Saint Ronald Reagan was all for firearms until the Black Panthers started showing up at the California State Capitol with long guns. And the same Black Panthers started shadowing police in Oakland CA. The firearms and open carry was fine until Black people started doing it. Then suddenly it was a public menace 'cause Black folks.
Remember, kids: it’s not the people who feel the need to carry a loaded firearm with them just to go down to their local Piggly Wiggly to get milk that are the ones living in irrational fear, it’s the people who are watching the insecure armed individuals with poor judgement wander down the same cereal aisle they and their children are in that are overreacting.
People bringing firearms to these things greatly increase the odds of things going sideways. As indeed happened in the Rittenhouse case. Do you not agree?
Wow. That is so far removed from reality I don’t know where to start.
No it isn’t. It’s more aptly described by reference to all the pertinent details, namely “being in a public place armed with a loaded assault rifle, held in the firing position, and while brandishing said weapon advancing into an area where an angry protest is occurring and has the potential to turn violent.” In simpler terms, he was not an innocent citizen in a public place; he was an armed vigilante who went looking for trouble, and found it. Had he not done so, the deaths and injuries he caused would not have occurred.
So you see that as equivalent to “being in a public place”? 
If the Rittenhouse verdict was technically correct, it doesn’t exonerate him from the accusation of having acted incredibly stupidly and dangerously and it doesn’t change the fact that the legality of what he did was supported by incredibly stupid laws that you would not find in any civilized society elsewhere in the world. Unsurprisingly, there are already calls for reform:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/20/opinions/kyle-rittenhouse-acquitted-rodgers/index.html
Absolutely it does. Yes, I agree. No, I don’t recommend it nor would I ever bring a gun to such an event, and I’d avoid anyone who did this.
And yet, people in open carry states do this all the time, i.e. carry weapons around with them during the normal course of events…though, IIRC, Piggly Wiggly has a sign that asks patrons not to carry in weapons. 
I don’t see any benefit in continuing this particular part of the discussion, as it seems to just go around and around…either you are freaking out by someone openly carrying or you aren’t. I’m not particularly freaked out by someone openly carrying, though admittedly I am more aware of someone who is openly carrying a weapon.
It would be better for society if the non-enforcement of the law during politically motivated riots and civil unrest was changed instead of removing the right individuals have to defend themselves if attacked by said rioters.
Why can’t we do both? I’m all for law enforcement enforcing the law. And I’d really like to less provocative behavior by heavily armed “counter protesters/street patrollers.”
I’m also interested in the phrase “politically motivated riots.” If a protect against police shootings are “politically motivated,” do you have any examples of “riots” that would not be considered politically motivated?
So, if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that when protests occur that you don’t approve of, such as BLM, the protestors should be shot at by police instead of civilian vigilantes?
Okay, I totally buy “having acted incredibly stupidly and dangerously” but acting in self defense? What nations don’t allow that defense during a murder trial?
Now you could say that how Rittenhouse was acting would be illegal in many nations sure. But the laws for the state of Wisconsin on Self defense do not appear to me to be unusual or “incredibly stupid”. What laws, exactly do you think are “incredibly stupid”?
If we took how and why he was there, and just assumed he was out with a legal shotgun, hunting on his own land, pointed said shotgun at trespassers, and then what occurred- happened, I do not think laws in other nations would declare him guilty.
I read that Op-ed, and it hardly questions the actual law or makes suggestions on what would be better, nor does it, at any time, state that other nations are better with their laws.
The article does question the open carry law in that state. But although that led to the incident, it was not a material part of the defense. “Without question, Rittenhouse did not have to be in Kenosha with his weapon strapped across his body as he ran around the streets in what was clearly an unpredictable and ultimately dangerous situation. If he had exercised better judgment and decided not to go that night, Rosenbaum and Huber would almost certainly still be alive. But in Wisconsin, that initial decision, as poor a decision as it was, does not constitute a crime, and the jury found his later actions justified.” Let us not get into open carry laws good/bad, as they were not a material part of the defense in this case.
The article does make this point:Our criminal justice system generally favors the defendant, because of our core belief that it is better to see a guilty man go free than to convict an innocent one. Thus in criminal cases, prosecutors carry the highest burden of proof known to our legal system: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. and yes, in some countries you are guilty until proven innocent. I think that is a bad idea.
However, our maxim here that you are innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt is, IMHO a great and wonderful system, and I certainly hope this is not the law that you consider incredibly stupid ?
The jury made the right decision, i trust our American legal system. But I agree that he made the totally wrong and stupid decision to go there and arm himself.
Right. Although I respect the laws, I also think carrying a AK47 around in Walmart is silly. However, the violent crime rate in open carry states does not seem any higher than others.
If we go down this road, this will just turn into another gun control debate. Good or bad, Wisconsin was a open carry state.
His open carry and his particular self defense claim are intertwined, because his stated reason for using deadly force was that he feared Rosenbaum would take his gun and shoot him or someone else with it.
For your hypothetical, is it legal in other countries to point a gun at trespassers on your land? I don’t think that’s legal in a bunch of states. I would think it’s not legal in very many countries either.
The stupidity consists of laws that allow an ordinary citizen to walk around with a loaded dangerous weapon in public under any circumstances, and in my view such laws elevate to the status of egregious stupidity when they protect an individual who intentionally walks into a situation likely to turn violent, and whose actions therefore constitute deliberate reckless endangerment.
A recent incident in Okotoks, Alta., in which a homeowner was charged after allegedly shooting a trespasser on his land, has raised questions about what actions homeowners can legally take to protect their property.
…
Burlew pointed to a case in Simcoe County as an example where he told Global News he disagreed with the court’s decision as to what could be construed as reasonable force.
He said a man who caught teenagers stealing fish out of his pond had fired a couple rounds of a 20-gauge shotgun over their heads and was sentenced to a year in prison, despite the fact that no one was injured. [emphasis mine]
…
Burlew said there are important reasons why police discourage homeowners from using force to protect themselves and their property from intruders.
“Very few people – a very small minority of Canadians – are actually trained in the use of force,” Burlew said, suggesting that an intruder or trespasser could attempt to overpower and wrestle a firearm away from the homeowner.