Couple things that the Rittenhouse events showed.....that no one will tell you.

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
23,635
26,980
1
An altered state
Lots of talk about what happened but not one person brought up what should be major talking points.


1. Anti gun folks say no one needs large capacity weapons and no one should have anything more than a six shot revolver. Well, KR fired at a minimum eight shots. Reports say he fired nine. And the very last shot he took.....the ninth shot......blew of the right bicep of a man that had a pistol pointed at his head. Had he not had nine shots, he certainly would have been dead. Even the eighth shot was the one that killed skate board man who was attempting to at least beat him senseless if not kill him. And once senseless the mob would have descended on him and either seriously maimed him or killed him. Shots eight and nine saved his life, a revolver would have left him dead.

2. The antis say no one needs a semiautomatic rifle or pistol. But in the first attack, he fired four shots in less than one second. Had he had a revolver, which shoots far slower, he may have been in deep trouble. The DA says the first shot fractured the attacker’s pelvis but don’t know how they know that for sure. It’s possible that the first shot hit his hand. And in the large majority of these type events, it is highly likely that the first shot misses entirely.

In any event, when some one is attacking at full speed at close range you don’t have multiple seconds to shoot. It is over much quicker. With a slow shooting revolver one could easily be overtaken. Only with a semiautomatic weapon does one have a reasonable chance of surviving such an attack.

3. He was not the only one out with a highly visible weapon. The video shows him at a couple businesses and both were surrounded by at least a dozen of well armed people. Would love to see some research to see how many businesses were so protected. Had to be many dozens if not hundreds across the city. Bet there were at least a thousand armed people defending their city. Imagine the additional damage done had they not been there.

4. This was the third or fourth night of full blown rioting and widespread arson. Haven’t seen any local reports from the previous nights but I would bet that there were news clips showing armed people protecting businesses and how that helped stop more arson and looting. This would encourage more people to come out and help. Showing how this helped control things would encourage people to help in future events.......which is why no liberal, corporate media will show this but bloggers and free lancers should.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,199
56,075
1
Lots of talk about what happened but not one person brought up what should be major talking points.


1. Anti gun folks say no one needs large capacity weapons and no one should have anything more than a six shot revolver. Well, KR fired at a minimum eight shots. Reports say he fired nine. And the very last shot he took.....the ninth shot......blew of the right bicep of a man that had a pistol pointed at his head. Had he not had nine shots, he certainly would have been dead. Even the eighth shot was the one that killed skate board man who was attempting to at least beat him senseless if not kill him. And once senseless the mob would have descended on him and either seriously maimed him or killed him. Shots eight and nine saved his life, a revolver would have left him dead.

2. The antis say no one needs a semiautomatic rifle or pistol. But in the first attack, he fired four shots in less than one second. Had he had a revolver, which shoots far slower, he may have been in deep trouble. The DA says the first shot fractured the attacker’s pelvis but don’t know how they know that for sure. It’s possible that the first shot hit his hand. And in the large majority of these type events, it is highly likely that the first shot misses entirely.

In any event, when some one is attacking at full speed at close range you don’t have multiple seconds to shoot. It is over much quicker. With a slow shooting revolver one could easily be overtaken. Only with a semiautomatic weapon does one have a reasonable chance of surviving such an attack.

3. He was not the only one out with a highly visible weapon. The video shows him at a couple businesses and both were surrounded by at least a dozen of well armed people. Would love to see some research to see how many businesses were so protected. Had to be many dozens if not hundreds across the city. Bet there were at least a thousand armed people defending their city. Imagine the additional damage done had they not been there.

4. This was the third or fourth night of full blown rioting and widespread arson. Haven’t seen any local reports from the previous nights but I would bet that there were news clips showing armed people protecting businesses and how that helped stop more arson and looting. This would encourage more people to come out and help. Showing how this helped control things would encourage people to help in future events.......which is why no liberal, corporate media will show this but bloggers and free lancers should.
I understand that it was mostly a peaceful protest. The one guy lit a dumpster on fire, turned over an empty port o potty, threatened Duke people and was calling people the N word tisk tisk tisk
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,199
56,075
1
FE9n_TaXsAgVIGx
 

interrobang

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2016
21,318
30,424
1
The antis say no one needs a semiautomatic rifle or pistol. But in the first attack, he fired four shots in less than one second. Had he had a revolver, which shoots far slower, he may have been in deep trouble.

A half decent shooter could fire off 4 shots from a revolver in that amount of time.
 

bdgan

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2008
60,340
36,262
1
Lots of talk about what happened but not one person brought up what should be major talking points.


1. Anti gun folks say no one needs large capacity weapons and no one should have anything more than a six shot revolver. Well, KR fired at a minimum eight shots. Reports say he fired nine. And the very last shot he took.....the ninth shot......blew of the right bicep of a man that had a pistol pointed at his head. Had he not had nine shots, he certainly would have been dead. Even the eighth shot was the one that killed skate board man who was attempting to at least beat him senseless if not kill him. And once senseless the mob would have descended on him and either seriously maimed him or killed him. Shots eight and nine saved his life, a revolver would have left him dead.

2. The antis say no one needs a semiautomatic rifle or pistol. But in the first attack, he fired four shots in less than one second. Had he had a revolver, which shoots far slower, he may have been in deep trouble. The DA says the first shot fractured the attacker’s pelvis but don’t know how they know that for sure. It’s possible that the first shot hit his hand. And in the large majority of these type events, it is highly likely that the first shot misses entirely.

In any event, when some one is attacking at full speed at close range you don’t have multiple seconds to shoot. It is over much quicker. With a slow shooting revolver one could easily be overtaken. Only with a semiautomatic weapon does one have a reasonable chance of surviving such an attack.

3. He was not the only one out with a highly visible weapon. The video shows him at a couple businesses and both were surrounded by at least a dozen of well armed people. Would love to see some research to see how many businesses were so protected. Had to be many dozens if not hundreds across the city. Bet there were at least a thousand armed people defending their city. Imagine the additional damage done had they not been there.

4. This was the third or fourth night of full blown rioting and widespread arson. Haven’t seen any local reports from the previous nights but I would bet that there were news clips showing armed people protecting businesses and how that helped stop more arson and looting. This would encourage more people to come out and help. Showing how this helped control things would encourage people to help in future events.......which is why no liberal, corporate media will show this but bloggers and free lancers should.
Libs think guns should only be for hunting, not for self defense.

They think outlawing certain guns will materially lower gun murders but the fact is only a very small percentage of gun murders are committed with these types of guns.

They think criminals won't be able to get these weapons if they are outlawed.

I personally have no problem with some stronger controls if they could be shown to make a material difference in gun violence but unfortunately the issue is more about politics than solving a problem.