• brbposting@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    10 months ago

    Was revealing the holstered weapon necessary, when he could have simply referred to it?

    Debatable. (Nah.)

    Did it intimidate?

    Perhaps. Hair on my neck would momentarily spike.

    Did the lawmaker aim to intimidate?

    Almost certainly not.

    Dude was admittedly nice enough to stop & chat with the kids. Everyone was polite & reasonable.

    It’s a damn shame the man lives in a world where he can even argue he feels safer carrying death on him. Things that can launch projectiles would be confined to fun & safe spaces (e.g. shooting ranges) - the only places people could safely use them - in a better world. But, he has a perception (one I don’t share). He discussed it, and used a visual aid.

    I think pointing towards the outside of his coat at his hip would’ve been smarter.

    • prole@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I guarantee the only reason he was “nice enough” to stop and talk to the kids was because he knew he was carrying, and he wanted to make them uncomfortable. Everything else was him working toward that goal, he had zero intention of actually having a good faith conversation with them.

      If he wasn’t carrying his handheld penis extender, he wouldn’t have gone over to talk to them in the first place