No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Trashing stores and stealing the contents is not a political act, but a criminal one.
Let's add in that not only is it a criminal act, but it is actual violence. As I said to one person being able to understand the rioters would also mean that you understand why people are protesting the Covid-19 lockdowns with guns. As they say, they may not agree with the method, but they understand the frustration.
Actually, I find the armed protesters less of a threat than I do an out of control mob who are actually engaged in violent acts. Arson is a major cause of loss of life and injury in commercial properties. Strangely, the people who somehow find that the rioting and looting are justified have an issue with people exercising their right to self-defence.
Rioting, looting, arson, and the other illegal acts mentioned in Title 18, the crimes code, and specifically Title 18, Article F, Chapter 55, are just that crimes and illegal. On the other hand someone does have the right to self-defence if they have a reasonable belief that are in danger of death or serious bodily injury. Which happens to be a very real threat if you are in the sights of rioters.
One person said, "couldn't you get out of their way, or leave town?" Is that a fair question if you get the lockdown order and AREN'T allowed to leave? Someone in that situation is pretty much stuck.
Which gets to the gun rights type's question: "shouldn't the person be allowed to defend themselves?" To which "Fuck, yeah!" seems to be the most sensible answer. And if the best weapon happens to be something semi-auto that can accept a large capacity magazine: then they should indeed be allowed to have such a weapon.
Which is why I titled this the way I did.
The person who somehow feels that the violence is "justified" or "understandable" should also be able to accept that people have a right to protect themselves. And the right which is lawful is the one of self-protection.
Not rioting.
Or as Donald Trump said: “when the looting starts, the shooting starts."
While I don't like Trump or the underlying events which led to the protests, the movement to violence has changed the game to a no win situation. And the people who are going to be the big losers are the ones the protests were supposed to help.
Likewise, I have made it clear that I don't support "gun rights" or believe it to be a real thing, but if people are going to condone violence, then they need to accept that the cycle of violence will continue.
And isn't ending the violence what the protests were trying to do?
You can condemn the violence, yet still support the underlying cause. If anything, it makes far more sense to condemn the violence instead of allowing the cycle of violence to keep rolling on.