I don’t have anything to say about the Kyle Rittenhouse case, but I do have some thoughts about self defense.

I am pretty left leaning when it comes to guns. I don’t like guns. I grew up in a house with hunting weapons. I gave it a shot (haha) but I didn’t like hunting. It’s just not for me.

I recognize, however, that we live in a country where guns are very popular. And unfortunately, it seems like that results in a lot of violence. As a relatively affluent white person, I don’t even begin to experience the full extent of what this means. When it comes to homicide, the numbers are clear that minorities, especially black people, bear the brunt of our firearm problem.

Here’s some data from the Kaiser Family Foundation - gun fatalities are twice as prevalent among blacks than among whites. That includes suicide and accidents, but it excludes the many instances where people are shot and live. Many of those survivors experience enduring physical and mental strife. 

In this kind of world, being able to defend yourself and not get thrown in jail seems really important. In utopia, it might be wrong to kill someone for any reason. But it’s not an exaggeration to say that for many people, “it’s either them or me” may be an urgent choice they are confronted with at some point in their lives. In that moment, your principled stance against guns isn’t going to save you. And if you’re black, you are far, far more likely to face this dilemma than if you are any other race.

A lot of people are outraged at the Rittenhouse verdict because they think it is unconscionable that you can go around and shoot people in this country and be found innocent by saying you were just defending yourself. It’s mostly the same people who profess to be most concerned with racial equity. I would ask them to consider whether a zero tolerance policy for self defense would achieve their aims. 

It might just be that a wide berth for self defense is in greater accord with equity.