4 ms·

Youd rather he be dead? That would be better?

by cdot2 5y ago

jacquesm 5y ago
No, I'd rather he stayed at home, rather than to play at police officer as a trigger happy youth.
- RubberMullet 5y ago
  You either didn't watch any of the videos from that night or don't know what trigger happy means. Rittenhouse made a number of mistakes but being trigger happy was not one of them.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    If I bring a sandwich to work I intend to eat it. If I bring a ball to the park I'm going to play with it. If I bring a loaded weapon to a riot I intend to use it. Normal people do not walk into riots with loaded guns unless they want to partake in that riot.
    - RubberMullet 5y ago
      If you wear a seat belt while driving a car do you intend to crash? Do you have any idea how many people were open carrying that night and never fired a shot? Rittenhouse hit every target he aimed at and all whom had attacked him. 100% of the people who didn't attack Rittenhouse were not shot. That is not trigger happy. And Rittenhouse didn't even fire the first shot, Ziminski did. Who is "normal" at a riot? The people firebombing immigrant owned businesses in the name of justice?
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        Are you seriously comparing a seat belt with a gun? Sorry, I can't follow you there.
        RobotCaleb 5y ago
        : shrug: you compared it to a sandwich
        jacquesm 5y ago
        No, I illustrated that intent usually goes right along with bringing stuff with you. If you feel that that equates a sandwich to a gun then I don't know how to explain things to you for which I apologize.
        scrollaway 5y ago
        Jacques, stop. You compared it to a sandwich. You don't get to complain that someone makes a comparison with a seat belt. I'm European and extremely pro gun control / anti gun in general, probably moreso than you, by the way. You are blinded by your bias and it really shows in your posts. Edit, to elaborate on why i think you're blinded by it: I am with you, it's utterly idiotic that people bring guns to these things and that this is somehow okay. But you can't judge US protester actions by EU standards, because over there and in that case, bringing a gun "just in case" with no intent to use it absolutely is standard. The comparison with a seat belt absolutely stands, because it was brought "just in case". And yes, it's stupid that this is how things are over there, but you can't blame a seventeen year old for centuries of political idiocy.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        I won't be told off by you or anybody else. You don't 'bring a seatbelt with you just in case', the law says that you should wear a seatbelt when you are inside a moving vehicle (unless it is public transportation, in which case apparently it suddenly doesn't apply). But you do bring a gun with you based on a conscious decision to do so, you do bring a loaded gun with you, and you do shoot to kill rather than to stop someone. And I do blame a seventeen year old for doing all this, these aren't accidents or self defense by any stretch of the imagination and as long as America/Americans do not realize that this is the wrong way to go about this it will end in another civil war one day. And it is up to the rest of the world to show that this is not the only way to go about this. I've lived in Canada, on the United States border. Canada has a pretty high number of citizens with guns, and yet the number of gun incidents per capita is a small fraction of what it is in the United States. This whole delusion that somehow allowing your populace to run around armed with military grade weapons is a good thing needs to go away. Before more people die (as they do pretty much every day on account of senseless gun violence).
- rayiner 5y ago
  The police officers had been standing down for two days! I don’t know what things are like in the Netherlands. But in Bangladesh, we still use guns to protect ourselves from people like the ones Rittenhouse killed. The only difference is that we technically have “gun control” so only the affluent people who can afford a guard to carry their gun for them can protect themselves.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    Yes, and in doing so the police managed not to kill anyone. It's a testament to their restraint. Vigilantism is illegal and for good reason, I'm surprised to see you advocating so strongly for it.

Youd rather he be dead? That would be better?

by cdot2 5y ago

Youd rather he be dead? That would be better?

jacquesm 5y ago

No, I'd rather he stayed at home, rather than to play at police officer as a trigger happy youth.

RubberMullet 5y ago
You either didn't watch any of the videos from that night or don't know what trigger happy means. Rittenhouse made a number of mistakes but being trigger happy was not one of them.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  If I bring a sandwich to work I intend to eat it. If I bring a ball to the park I'm going to play with it. If I bring a loaded weapon to a riot I intend to use it. Normal people do not walk into riots with loaded guns unless they want to partake in that riot.
  - RubberMullet 5y ago
    If you wear a seat belt while driving a car do you intend to crash? Do you have any idea how many people were open carrying that night and never fired a shot? Rittenhouse hit every target he aimed at and all whom had attacked him. 100% of the people who didn't attack Rittenhouse were not shot. That is not trigger happy. And Rittenhouse didn't even fire the first shot, Ziminski did. Who is "normal" at a riot? The people firebombing immigrant owned businesses in the name of justice?
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      Are you seriously comparing a seat belt with a gun? Sorry, I can't follow you there.
      - RobotCaleb 5y ago
        : shrug: you compared it to a sandwich
        jacquesm 5y ago
        No, I illustrated that intent usually goes right along with bringing stuff with you. If you feel that that equates a sandwich to a gun then I don't know how to explain things to you for which I apologize.
        scrollaway 5y ago
        Jacques, stop. You compared it to a sandwich. You don't get to complain that someone makes a comparison with a seat belt. I'm European and extremely pro gun control / anti gun in general, probably moreso than you, by the way. You are blinded by your bias and it really shows in your posts. Edit, to elaborate on why i think you're blinded by it: I am with you, it's utterly idiotic that people bring guns to these things and that this is somehow okay. But you can't judge US protester actions by EU standards, because over there and in that case, bringing a gun "just in case" with no intent to use it absolutely is standard. The comparison with a seat belt absolutely stands, because it was brought "just in case". And yes, it's stupid that this is how things are over there, but you can't blame a seventeen year old for centuries of political idiocy.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        I won't be told off by you or anybody else. You don't 'bring a seatbelt with you just in case', the law says that you should wear a seatbelt when you are inside a moving vehicle (unless it is public transportation, in which case apparently it suddenly doesn't apply). But you do bring a gun with you based on a conscious decision to do so, you do bring a loaded gun with you, and you do shoot to kill rather than to stop someone. And I do blame a seventeen year old for doing all this, these aren't accidents or self defense by any stretch of the imagination and as long as America/Americans do not realize that this is the wrong way to go about this it will end in another civil war one day. And it is up to the rest of the world to show that this is not the only way to go about this. I've lived in Canada, on the United States border. Canada has a pretty high number of citizens with guns, and yet the number of gun incidents per capita is a small fraction of what it is in the United States. This whole delusion that somehow allowing your populace to run around armed with military grade weapons is a good thing needs to go away. Before more people die (as they do pretty much every day on account of senseless gun violence).
rayiner 5y ago
The police officers had been standing down for two days! I don’t know what things are like in the Netherlands. But in Bangladesh, we still use guns to protect ourselves from people like the ones Rittenhouse killed. The only difference is that we technically have “gun control” so only the affluent people who can afford a guard to carry their gun for them can protect themselves.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  Yes, and in doing so the police managed not to kill anyone. It's a testament to their restraint. Vigilantism is illegal and for good reason, I'm surprised to see you advocating so strongly for it.