[burgerbrain]

If a looter sees that someone has a metal baseball bat and doesn't decided to walk away, then they are responsible for what happens to themselves. Anyone with two braincells to rub together knows that if you go up against somebody with a giant metal club, you might die. Let's be honest here, these are not sniper rifles, in order for someone to be killed by someone wielding a bat defensively they have to opt-in.

What I find more disturbing than anything else here is the prospect of a violent individual too stupid to properly analyze such a situation.

[nate_meurer]

I agree. I would add that any kind of rioting opts you in to the possibility of death and dismemberment. Be it by bats, rubber bullets, trampling underneath fellow rioters. Responsibility for a wide range of consequences should lie with the rioter.

[felipemnoa]

You make a good argument. If the looter still comes after you after noticing your bat then you should be really scared. If he manages to get the bat away from you he will probably use it to beat you to a pulp.

[justincormack]

In my experience of these London kids a lot of them are smoking heroin during these types of violent events, so I would be unlikely to trust their rationality.

[dennisgorelik]

A shortgun would be a better choice than aluminum bat in that case.

[mileszs]

In order to kill someone with a baseball bat, you must aim for their heads. It's possible to incapacitate someone with a baseball bat without aiming to kill them.

You also are assuming that all of these confrontations are done face-to-face, and that both parties have plenty of time to think about what they're doing first. It's already pretty clear few of these looters are analyzing anything.