Kyle Rittenhouse - teen who shot three people in Kenosha

[NVP]

Guess there is a correlation between those that think rioting is a perfectly fine form of protest

That's quite the leap to make! Don't go out playing vigilante = love rioting

LOL

what about those places that did have insurance and yet payouts weren't even covering the cost of the building damage caused by the rioters

I'm sure we covered this previously, although I note you didn't reply. Your own article, and many others, state those people were under insured. That's their own fault. Just to elaborate and avoid further confusion, that doesn't mean "they were not insured for rioting", only they didn't have insurance covering the necessary value. Their fault.


So let me think from your guys perspective:
Ok, so they knowingly are under insured and hear there's potential looting and rioting going on - what's the option? Stand guard with guns, ok, a bit extreme in most countries but Americans will do as Americans do. In this situation they must know there is potential to kill someone, taking a gun to defend a building during a time of unrest. They're happy taking someone's life because they were too stingy to buy the appropriate insurance, ok they are American, they can have that too.


Do you feel that is acceptable behaviour in a civilised nation?

Now compare that to the riots in Birmingham a few years back where you had groups of religious Sikhs and Muslims defending gurdwara, mosques and churches from vandalisation during the unrest. No guns required. Now I know its not exactly a fair comparison due to the US gun laws, but it is an example of community protection without violence.


For you guys, the fact that these businesses had insufficient insurance makes it OK for them to play cops and robbers with real guns. For me, hell no. We'll leave it there.

 

[C Kent]

That's quite the leap to make! Don't go out playing vigilante = love rioting

LOL

if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck..

I'm sure we covered this previously, although I note you didn't reply. Your own article, and many others, state those people were under insured. That's their own fault. Just to elaborate and avoid further confusion, that doesn't mean "they were not insured for rioting", only they didn't have insurance covering the necessary value. Their fault.

From the very same article that you have apparently read all the way through -

Moreover, even full insurance repayment is often not enough. For example, the Star Tribune reports that in the Minneapolis area, demolition costs for properties destroyed in the riots are far exceeding what insurance will cover. The newspaper found that “Most policies limit reimbursement to $25,000 to $50,000, but contractors have been submitting bids of $200,000 to $300,000. In many cases, the price of the work is not much lower than the actual value of the property.”

So there you go, even businesses with full insurance policies are finding that the amounts offered aren't anywhere near enough to cover property damage let alone the other factors I mentioned, but

"Sympathetic journalists, activists, and academics might dismiss property damage as all “covered by insurance,” but they are completely out of touch with the reality of the situation many small businesses now face"

Seems very apt.

Ok, so they knowingly are under insured and hear there's potential looting and rioting going on - what's the option?

Irrelevant, doesn't matter if they have full insurance, no insurance or are under insured, those rioting should obey the law.. it's quite simple. Moreso in this instance where the rioters were acting upon a fallacy.

Stand guard with guns, ok, a bit extreme in most countries but Americans will do as Americans do. In this situation they must know there is potential to kill someone, taking a gun to defend a building during a time of unrest. They're happy taking someone's life because they were too stingy to buy the appropriate insurance, ok they are American, they can have that too.

Do you feel that is acceptable behaviour in a civilised nation?

Yes

Now compare that to the riots in Birmingham a few years back where you had groups of religious Sikhs and Muslims defending gurdwara, mosques and churches from vandalisation during the unrest. No guns required. Now I know its not exactly a fair comparison due to the US gun laws, but it is an example of community protection without violence.

If guns were legal in the UK to the same degree as in the US we both know they would been armed to the hilt, apparently according to you they shouldn't have been protecting their property though, they should have just let it all be destroyed right?

For you guys, the fact that these businesses had insufficient insurance makes it OK for them to play cops and robbers with real guns. For me, hell no. We'll leave it there.

Again, its irrelevant as many small businesses had sufficient insurance. Hopefully, in future those rioting will stop and think a little and maybe realise their life isn't worth breaking the law for. I doubt it though, they aren't the smartest tool in the box.

 

[bobuk]

I don't think he is a murderer

I don't think he went there specifically intending to kill anyone, instead just wanted to larp around with a gun playing 'grown up'.

I do think he used self-defense when everything kicked off

I also think he is a terrible little scrote, albeit an innocent one.

He took a gun to a protest, he carried openly and didn't intend to use it ? He's been plying to many video games. If you carry a gun like that then you intend to use it, why do you think the services take time to train people about guns.

 

[NVP]

if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

It's a guy who loves a riot...? Strange fella.

So there you go, even businesses with full insurance policies are finding that the amounts offered aren't anywhere near enough to cover property damage let alone the other factors I mentioned

Yes, insurances have policy limits, and if you require more then you pay for larger limits or choose a provider who covers it. You know, like usual business insurance. I wonder why I couldn't find much on Google supporting your position.

I have 2 businesses, both insured for the appropriate amount.

Irrelevant, doesn't matter if they have full insurance, no insurance or are under insured

They didn't have sufficient cover, that's been established.

those rioting should obey the law

Is anyone disputing this?

If guns were legal in the UK to the same degree as in the US we both know they would been armed to the hilt, apparently according to you they shouldn't have been protecting their property though, they should have just let it all be destroyed right?

Correct.

Again, its irrelevant as many small businesses had sufficient insurance.

...did they? I'm confused on your position now.

 

[Vulcan]

I'm sure we covered this previously, although I note you didn't reply. Your own article, and many others, state those people were under insured. That's their own fault. Just to elaborate and avoid further confusion, that doesn't mean "they were not insured for rioting", only they didn't have insurance covering the necessary value. Their fault.


So let me think from your guys perspective:
Ok, so they knowingly are under insured and hear there's potential looting and rioting going on - what's the option? Stand guard with guns, ok, a bit extreme in most countries but Americans will do as Americans do. In this situation they must know there is potential to kill someone, taking a gun to defend a building during a time of unrest. They're happy taking someone's life because they were too stingy to buy the appropriate insurance, ok they are American, they can have that too.

It's not the store owners fault, it's the fault of the rioters. Can't believe you're shifting the blame here.

Even when there's enough insurance, certain thing may be capped in the small print, here for example: https://www.startribune.com/skyrock...amaged-properties-delay-rebuilding/572269302/

Downtime may also not be covered, how long is going to take to get the old building demolished, rebuilt and restocked? Claiming on insurance will increase premiums as well.

Paying insurance that covers absolutely everything, to the penny, may be financially unviable.

Now compare that to the riots in Birmingham a few years back where you had groups of religious Sikhs and Muslims defending gurdwara, mosques and churches from vandalisation during the unrest. No guns required. Now I know its not exactly a fair comparison due to the US gun laws, but it is an example of community protection without violence.

They were armed though:



And those are just the weapons we can see.

Turkish community did the same, armed again: https://www.mylondon.news/news/bbc-london-riots-we-chased-21268409

For you guys, the fact that these businesses had insufficient insurance makes it OK for them to play cops and robbers with real guns. For me, hell no. We'll leave it there.

It's not playing cops and robbers. They aren't arresting anyone, they are defending their community and livelihood.

 

[C Kent]

...did they? I'm confused on your position now.

Its not rocket science, you do understand 2 statements can be true right even when they are the opposite.

1: A lot of businesses are underinsured or don't have insurance (40%)
2: Many small businesses had sufficient insurance (60%)

 

[NVP]

It's not the store owners fault, it's the fault of the rioters. Can't believe you're shifting the blame here.

LOL I'm not shifting blame. They're both at fault for different things.

Even when there's enough insurance, certain thing may be capped in the small print, here for example: https://www.startribune.com/skyrock...amaged-properties-delay-rebuilding/572269302/

So there wasn't enough insurance. Insurance coveage is all about the small print

Downtime may also not be covered, how long is going to take to get the old building demolished, rebuilt and restocked? Claiming on insurance will increase premiums as well.

So underinsured. I accept some things can't be accounted for, such as the suggested price gauging by contractors in your article above, however downtimes happen during natural disasters also. Granted prevention methods are diffferent for this case, but morality appears to determine the limits of such methods.

Paying insurance that covers absolutely everything, to the penny, may be financially unviable.

Risk.

They were armed though:

There is a vast difference between swords and bats to assault rifles.

It's not playing cops and robbers. They aren't arresting anyone, they are defending their community and livelihood.

So armed vigilantes?

 

[Roar87]

He took a gun to a protest, he carried openly and didn't intend to use it ? He's been plying to many video games. If you carry a gun like that then you intend to use it, why do you think the services take time to train people about guns.

You think guns are scary and only the government should be armed because that makes you feel safe. Unfortunately Kyle lived in a place where there was wide spread rioting to the degree that the Police were unwilling and/or unable to maintain the peace, he felt it was his civic duty to go and defend businesses from criminals and vandals. Given the Police were unable to protect businesses from rioters it's unlikely they could also defend people from rioters, so Kyle made the sensible decision to take a weapon to defend himself. Carrying a weapon doesn't mean you intend or want to use it. This is just something you've decided based on nothing.

 

[NVP]

Its not rocket science, you do understand 2 statements can be true right even when they are the opposite.

1: A lot of businesses are underinsured or don't have insurance (40%)
2: Many small businesses had sufficient insurance (60%)

ok

Do you think those who had sufficient insurance should have gone out, or only those who didn't have sufficient coverage?

 

[StriderX]

Doesn't really matter if they don't intend to use the gun as everyone else has to assume they will which makes people make stupid decisions.

 

[mcast123]

I have 2 businesses, both insured for the appropriate amount.

They didn't have sufficient cover, that's been established.

You've painted yourself into a corner and unnecessarily polarized your argument.

US gun laws are insane, every idiot with an emotion has the opportunity to quickly murder lots of people. The old arguments of "a knife is a weapon" or "defend your home" are utter nonsense. Every successfully repelled home invasion has many more cases of family members blowing each other away.

Kyle was a dumb kid with the right principles. Who wants to live in a country with animals running down the street, destroying everything? Look at Seattle, I thought that was a nice city, it's full of street junkies, defecating, injecting and openly stealing.

 

[Roar87]

Doesn't really matter if they don't intend to use the gun as everyone else has to assume they will which makes people make stupid decisions.

That doesn't make, someone carrying a gun makes people make stupid decisions, do you actually believe that? You're defending lunatics trying to attack an armed man who actually didn't do anything to deserve being attacked except try to stop people breaking the law.

 

[StriderX]

That doesn't make, someone carrying a gun makes people make stupid decisions, do you actually believe that? You're defending lunatics trying to attack an armed man who actually didn't do anything to deserve being attacked except try to stop people breaking the law.

The presence of a weapon inherently increases the risk to everyone in the vicinity, so yes people's fight/flight mechanisms will be going into overdrive and the likely presence of drug-fuelled psychosis is only going to make acting on those impulses inevitable.

My ideal solution to this would have been the police doing their job but the politicians (bOtHsIdEs) and their corporate pals would rather the poors kill eachother.

 

[Roar87]

The presence of a weapon inherently increases the risk to everyone in the vicinity, so yes people's fight/flight mechanisms will be going into overdrive and the likely presence of drug-fuelled psychosis is only going to make acting on those impulses inevitable.

You're basically removing people's personal responsibility for their actions by blaming it on "fight/flight mechanisms" and drugs lol. Come on man, are you going to apply that same logic to every instance where guns are present so people can just do what they want and be absolved of their actions?

 

[C Kent]

ok

Do you think those who had sufficient insurance should have gone out, or only those who didn't have sufficient coverage?

I think everyone should defend their business and community to the fullest extent of the law against a rioting, lawless rabble.

 

[Vulcan]

So underinsured. I accept some things can't be accounted for, such as the suggested price gauging by contractors in your article above, however downtimes happen during natural disasters also. Granted prevention methods are diffferent for this case, but morality appears to determine the limits of such methods.

It's not price gauging, the government determines that all of it must be handled as hazardous waste, the contractor has to be licenced to do that which drives up the cost.

Risk.

Which can be countered with physically protecting your property.

There is a vast difference between swords and bats to assault rifles.

Rittenhouse didn't have one either, they are legal semi-auto rifles.

And yes there is a difference, but what's your point? They went their armed to protect property, because showing up unarmed isn't going to have the same deterrent. In the land of firearms, you bring a firearm, in the land bats and swords, you bring bats and swords.

 

[NVP]

You've painted yourself into a corner and unnecessarily polarized your argument.

You've lost me.

It's not price gauging

I said "suggested price gauging" as per your article just to keep it brief.

And yes there is a difference, but what's your point? They went their armed to protect property, because showing up unarmed isn't going to have the same deterrent. In the land of firearms, you bring a firearm, in the land bats and swords, you bring bats and swords.

In the land of firearms you stay home and let your insurance cover it or risk being in or even escalating a deadly situation. Value of life is nothing it appears.

Which can be countered with physically protecting your property.

Most owners do install physical security. Thinking 'I can't afford the insurance so I'll just camp out with my gun' is a bit more of an unstable thought when negating risk. I understand I've said that in quite the crass way but I'm struggling to care lol

 

[Vulcan]

Most owners do install physical security. Thinking 'I can't afford the insurance so I'll just camp out with my gun' is a bit more of an unstable thought when negating risk. I understand I've said that in quite the crass way but I'm struggling to care lol

So why did the Sikh men you praised earlier stand outside with weapons? That could have turned deadly. Why didn't they just rely on insurance?

 

[Caracus2k]

So many weak and pathetic people in threads like this that would see the societies they live in weaken and collapse due to their craven passivity.

You don't create a happier more prosperous society by surrendering the streets to felons, paedophiles, woman beaters and the rest of the usual degenerates that turn out like clockwork to these supposed 'social justice' protests in places like the Uk and US because 'business have insurance don't they...?'

Ideally the police should be the ones robustly cracking down on these people but there will always be the need for people to be able to defend both themselves, their property and other people and other peoples property.

And as I have said repeatedly there is a considerable degree of dishonesty from many in this discussion when the whole state lines/17 year old topics come up as if we are supposed to believe that they would have been OK with what happened or at least much less concerned if Rittenhouse had been a year older and lived somewhere else in the large urban area he worked and lived in.

I certainly would not be for changing UK laws to allow the mass ownership of semi automatic rifles but the US has its laws, geography and its legacy which includes the 2nd amendedment. And even with one of the most heavily armed populations on the globe the US isn't anywhere near the top of the rankings when it comes to homicides per capita. You instead have to travel to one of the failed states so championed by the likes of members of the Democrats (US) and Labour (UK) like Venezuela to find thoose at the top of this particular table, that have murder stats that totally eclipse the per capita figures for the US.

For a long time any attempt to disarm the US would just result in law breakers being the main group of the public armed with guns.

And people need to calm their hysterical reactions to people having semi automatic rifles vs handguns with the latter accounting for the vast majority of homicides in the US including 'mass shootings'.

Rittenhouse actually showed a very good level of control and restraint in his use of the firearm he was carrying only using it in short bursts when his life was immediately in danger, seeking to retreat wherever possible and seeking to surrender calmly to the police as soon as he could.

And the necessity of him possessing the firearm was shown by the attempt by Gaige Grosskreutz to kill him with a gun before Rittenhouse stopped that threat with his rifle.

 

[NVP]

So why did the Sikh men you praised earlier stand outside with weapons? That could have turned deadly. Why didn't they just rely on insurance?

Praised? Lol. I used it as an example of community protection without violence, granted I was unaware they were brandishing their swords for that picture, which goes against teachings but that's by the by, so poor example on my part.

Edit: Just to clarify, I still maintain the sensible option is to stay at home.