If we follow this argument to it's logical conclusion, then the other individual with the gun (or, quite literally, any bystander in such a situation, defending themselves from an active shooter) shooting and killing Rittenhouse would have also been a perfectly reasonable outcome.

I have no doubt that he, too, felt threatened for his life by an armed gunman at some point in that altercation.

I also assume that, as the saying goes, either of the people that Rittenhouse killed would have also rather faced a trial by twelve, than be carried by six.

In a country where things like open carry are legal, the "logical conclusion" of your argument makes no sense. That would mean when anyone who owns a gun sees another gun in public, they can conclude that their life is threatened and open fire with no consequences.

This seems to be a bad faith argument, given that Kyle was being physically and brutally attacked when he correctly responded in self-defense. Quite different from your "logical conclusion".

That's not the contradiction you seem to think it is. It's easy to imagine scenarios where two parties could be legitimately acting in self-defense, because of what they reasonably -- but possibly incorrectly -- believe about the other's motive.

This kind of very easy dramatic escalation is exactly why carrying rifles around on the street at all should be illegal. But that's a separate question from the one of whether according to the set of laws we actually live under, Rittenhouse is guilty of murder or not.

I think you've outlined exactly the kind of contradiction that I think it is - a moral, not a legal one. The laws on the books encourage this sort of insane behaviour, and as a result, two people are dead, but legally speaking, nobody's at fault. I'm not blaming any of this on the jury.

Had the facts gone even a little differently, one person would have been dead, and again, it's unlikely that anyone would have been found at fault.