>

Note to the people who say that "It's not the guns."
When the gunman didn't have a gun anymore, he couldn't shoot anyone. Should be kind of obvious, but for some reason, it isn't.
If he hadn't had 2 guns, he wouldn't have been able to shoot hinself either. Just kind or pointing that out.
I saw a presser he did briefly earlier today and this guy just seems so humble. He wouldn’t take questions about himself - just said he wanted the focus to be on the victims. His family says he’s very introverted and they’re all kind of shocked that their reserved brother/son disarmed a murderer on a killing spree. I hope Tsay gets the privacy he wants but I also hope he realizes that he really is a hero who saved lives and prevented this tragedy from being worse than it was. >

They will forget about him. The media doesn't like to showcase these folks. >

As he was shown with full name on ABC's Good Morning America? The same article that was mentioned on BBC? What are you on about? >

For long. Its gone in a cycle or two. >

Duh? Unless this guy disarms another shooter next week what else would there be to talk about in a news cycle or two? >

"When I got the courage." He conquered his fear quickly and did some boss ish. I salute my brotha >

Dicks out for Brandon Tsay >

This guys is a fucking hero.  Be like this guy. >

We shouldn’t have to be. He didn’t want to be that guy, I guarantee you. >

Real heroes never do >

Consider that on average something like 5% of the population carries a gun at a given moment. So there are just way more unarmed people out there. >

Okay, so why are people giving their lives so that 5% of the population can be useless? >

That’s not how stats work >

Happy to play the stat game if you want. 
The laws that let 5% of the population carry guns around (who have no measurable impact on the crime rate and only intervene in 3% of shootings), also directly arm 70% of mass shooters.
That's what people are being told to accept by the gun owners frothily braying about "good guys with guns".
Do you want to get into spicier stats, like how the people claiming they're going to "defend their family" are actually putting their family in much greater danger? >

All the talk about good "Defensive Gun Use", instances where some gun owner stops a problem situation, ignore that these are subjective, biased, and often self-reported incidents. We'll see things like "check out this DGU, where a guy stopped an argument from escalating by showing off his gun". But that's not a crime being stopped. There's no proof that argument was going to escalate. Hell, flashing a gun is an escalation! And then we run into the myriad instances where the person "ending the argument" is the one who started it, knowing that they could get to feel like a big man by engineering scenarios that flashing their gun can put them on top of.
I'm reminded of a story from a few years back that was all over Reddit. Guy stops an argument in a supermarket parking lot with his gun, clap clap clap, what a great DGU, guy's a hero. Was all over several subs, even non-gun ones. Then it happens again a month later, same guy. Wow! This dude's a regular parking lot superhero! Again, the story makes the rounds on Reddit.
Then it happens again, but this time he shoots someone. Oh, whoops, the story's starting to fall apart. Now people are looking into him. Now they're seeing that he's previously shot someone. Now they're seeing that he routinely gets into arguments with random people. Now it's coming out that this guy loads up with his gun, goes out instigating fights, then pulls the gun whenever he wants his "win". Dude didn't solve any problems he didn't create on purpose. And this is not a unique phenomenon. Most of us know people like this, but not all of them are using guns to do it. >


the myriad instances where the person "ending the argument" is the one who started it, knowing that they could get to feel like a big man by engineering scenarios that flashing their gun can put them on top of.

we call that "the Rittenhouse" >

Maybe if you know absolutely nothing about the case. >

i watched plenty of the trial. i know the case and seen the videos. Rittenhouse deliberately put himself into a toxic scenario with a loaded weapon where he could potentially use it on someone. 
whether or not he got attacked first is irrelevant. he chose to travel to an area which he did not live and chose to present as a threat to others (which carrying a loaded AR-15 is absolutely a fucking open "come at me bro" threat) in the midst of a serious protest. he chose that situation and people died as a result. he got to kill someone and use self defense as excuse which is exactly why he put himself in that situation. >


Rittenhouse deliberately put himself into a toxic scenario

So did everybody else there. Not illegal. 

with a loaded weapon

So did many others, but nobody attacked them. The only one we know of who was illegally carrying a loaded weapon was the one who tried to shoot Rittenhouse. 

where he could potentially use it on someone.

Not illegal. Also, he ran from every conflict, so the idea that he intended to kill anyone is plainly absurd. 

whether or not he got attacked first is irrelevant. 

It absolutely is relevant, both legally and morally. 

he chose to travel to an area which he did not live

That was his town, his job, friends, and family there. A trip there is less than the average commute within Los Angeles. When you live in a small town, the nearest big city is also your city. But at least you didn't bring up the irrelevant "state lines" bullshit. Also, two of his attackers were from much further away and had no connections to the city. 

which carrying a loaded AR-15 is absolutely a fucking open "come at me bro" threat

Uh, no. It says "Don't attack me." Unfortunately, a violent off-his-meds mentally ill serial child rapist couldn't read, and then the mob couldn't either. All of his attackers had sordid violent criminal histories, and violent criminals tend to not care. 
Your entire logic is the same as "If she hadn't worn that short skirt to the seedy bar, then she wouldn't have been raped." You're blaming the victim.