Because if someone lives in a place where their life is at threat just by being queer and existing to the point that they have to kill someone, they have no chance of finding a sympathetic jury.
Doesn’t make it a bad idea to reduce the chance of getting in trouble. You’re just putting them in a corner by chastising them for finding a way to protect themselves.
Chastise is probably not the right word, excuse me for my poor English vocab. You are telling them not to do something without providing an alternative that would also help them in the short term. That is, in some way, putting them in a corner.
Also, its not them taking a risk, it’s them weighing the risk of being bashed with the risk of having to shoot a bigot.
If they decide that the risk of someone trying to bash them is much lower while open carrying, obviously that means the risk of having to shoot them is also lower.
I would suggest an alternative would be a less-than-lethal weapon like a stun gun.
And I would say that the risk of open carrying, beyond the legal issue, is that a bigot could shoot them first. Or just attack them from behind before they could get to the gun. So I would also suggest that concealed carry would be safer.
A less than lethal weapon would also, presumably, has less of a deterrent than a gun, wouldn’t you agree?
Also, you’re assuming that every bigot that dare to bash queer people would also want to be a murderer, which is not likely. Attacking from behind is more likely, but the same thing can still happen even if they are not armed.
With conceal carry, now you have the exact same probability of being bashed by bigots as not being armed, but you now are more likely to be tried for murder or manslaughter, which the exact thing you’re using as argument against open carrying, so that doesn’t make sense.
Not really. Why would you attack someone with a stun gun on their belt? If you’re stupid enough to do that, you’re stupid enough to attack them with a gun on their belt.
The risk of death is not the same. What idiot would equate the risk of death from being stunned to being shot by a gun that they would do the exact same thing when confronted with either of them?
A gun and some time on death row to go with it.
Because if someone lives in a place where their life is at threat just by being queer and existing to the point that they have to kill someone, they have no chance of finding a sympathetic jury.
Doesn’t make it a bad idea to reduce the chance of getting in trouble. You’re just putting them in a corner by chastising them for finding a way to protect themselves.
When did I chastise them? If they want to take that risk, on their shoulders be it.
Chastise is probably not the right word, excuse me for my poor English vocab. You are telling them not to do something without providing an alternative that would also help them in the short term. That is, in some way, putting them in a corner.
Also, its not them taking a risk, it’s them weighing the risk of being bashed with the risk of having to shoot a bigot.
If they decide that the risk of someone trying to bash them is much lower while open carrying, obviously that means the risk of having to shoot them is also lower.
I would suggest an alternative would be a less-than-lethal weapon like a stun gun.
And I would say that the risk of open carrying, beyond the legal issue, is that a bigot could shoot them first. Or just attack them from behind before they could get to the gun. So I would also suggest that concealed carry would be safer.
A less than lethal weapon would also, presumably, has less of a deterrent than a gun, wouldn’t you agree?
Also, you’re assuming that every bigot that dare to bash queer people would also want to be a murderer, which is not likely. Attacking from behind is more likely, but the same thing can still happen even if they are not armed.
With conceal carry, now you have the exact same probability of being bashed by bigots as not being armed, but you now are more likely to be tried for murder or manslaughter, which the exact thing you’re using as argument against open carrying, so that doesn’t make sense.
Not really. Why would you attack someone with a stun gun on their belt? If you’re stupid enough to do that, you’re stupid enough to attack them with a gun on their belt.
The risk of death is not the same. What idiot would equate the risk of death from being stunned to being shot by a gun that they would do the exact same thing when confronted with either of them?
You didn’t answer my question: Why would you attack someone with a stun gun on their belt?
I’d rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.
Yes, very good, you know a famous saying.