Small chance. Easy. I'll even say that the visible presence of an armed person can be expected to de-escalate or diffuse a volatile situation.
And it doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong (I am right, though). Americans are not helpless peasants helplessly waiting for brave knights and lords of war to help us. Especially when those very lords invited the aggressors and ordered the knights to forsake their sworn duties. We are freemen. Wholly entitled to go into any situation we damn well please so long as we don't attack anyone, break anything, or steal a single thing.
We are under no obligation to bow to brigands, invaders, gangs, mobs, or even God Himself.

Anyone else doesn't wanna die? All they have to do is not attack someone else.

My questions are entirely relevant. But I'll answer yours anyways. I'll speak from experience, even. Yes, you can bring a weapon to a volatile situation and not expect to use it. To not even want to use it. You can even bring a tool and expect it's mere presence to help keep things from getting bad or worse.
And here's a newsflash for you: It's always been a legal precedent that one can employ lethal force to defend life, limb, and livelihood. If you are attacked first you can and should use whatever means are avaliable to preserve your own wellbeing. Doesn't matter one bit if you're in your own home, a warzone, a city on fire, or just picking up groceries.

Your paranoid delusions aside, the obvious solution remains a valid option:
Fucking don't attack people.
I'll again repeat my questions from before: Do you blame the skirt for the rape? The seat belt for the wreck? The fire extinguisher for arson?

Hmmmm... I certainly hope not. Unless I'm killed by some Shakespearean serial killer.

Yes. A lot. You also made shit up. And at this point I'm certain it's all intentional.

I mean, wrong country. But they ain't doing much better, and you've got the spirit

No, you don't know that "shots will be fired". You bring a deterent to try and avert that scenario, and you make damn sure you're ready to use it in case some crazies decide to try and kill you anyways.
Nobody is under any obligation to do nothing while bad shit is going on, and you for sure cannot fault or blame those who try to help and have the good sense to prepare for the worst while hoping for better.
Or what? Do you ignore seatbelts or forgo fire extinguishers because you think that they cause wrecks or provoke fires?

It doesn't show Kyle aiming first.
Stop trying to blame the victim. And don't you dare even suggest that people should stand idly by while the world around them turns to shit. No good has ever come from that mindset. Not the slightest bit of harm was ever mitigated or averted by appeasing or ignoring evil.

Vaas' ship

I would advise against that. You become the aggressor at that point in any jurisdiction that doesn't have "fighting words" laws. And it's far more fun to point out the absurdity of calling someone who is unwilling to be a medical experiment by the moniker of a man who used the power of the state to force people to be medical experiments.

Careful. The people trying to call you that are really trying to equate you to a Nazi war criminal, Mengele. Who medically experimented on people who had no choice in the matter.

Don't be horny on main, be horny always

I don't know if that's worse.

Nope.
Well, people starving in the street definitely is, but not VFDs.

It's really not.

You read wrong. The defense was denied the uncompressed footage by the prosecution, making it unethical evidence in the first place as both prosecution and defense need to see and be allowed a chance to study or contest the evidence in American Courts.
Whoever you read had lied to you. Watch the fucking trial. There's no excuse if you want to comment on it.

Bringing the rifle was entirely sensible. Legal, too. And doesn't need to be justified.
If one is cornered or in the right, it doesn't matter if they stand with an army or all alone, but you should know that Kyle was a part of a group, and was separated in the chaos. Maybe deliberately, as one of the fuckers who tried to kill him promised to get him alone so he could kill the kid. To his face, made that promise.
The presence of a rifle did not provoke anything, nothing Kyle did can be considered provocation. And yes, him being attacked is what matters. Not how long her skirt was, not how much she drank, not why she decided to go to a frat house. You sleep fine? You shouldn't. Not when you're blaming victims, ignoring the actual law, questioning why a person would want to do good, or trying to deny someone their rights.

Watch the fucking testimony. Whoever you're reading is lying to you.
And no, he didn't kill anyone to "protect property". He fired his weapon to defend himself after being isolated, hostiles attempting to disarm him (life threat), stomp his head in (life threat), split his skull with a heavy and narrow club (life threat), and the last guy admitted on the stand that Rittenhouse saw him approach with a (illegal) gun in hand and didn't fire until he pointed it at Rittenhouse after feigning surrender (perfidy, plus life threat).
Rittenhouse had every reason to be there, to offer medical aid, police litter, put out fires, and generally aid the community he worked in where his family lives (not that anyone who wants to do community service needs a justification). The ones who shouldn't have been there are the rioters and the rioters alone.