• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

    • stephen01king@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

        • stephen01king@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          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?

                • stephen01king@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  That’s was my answer. The twisted reason they would want to bash queers doesn’t seem like it would be discouraged by a simple stun gun, unlike with an actual gun. Now, why don’t you answer my question?

                  Also, remember when you said a bigot would simply attack you from behind when you open carry a gun? What happened to that logic when it comes to stun guns?

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    The twisted reason they would want to bash queers doesn’t seem like it would be discouraged by a simple stun gun, unlike with an actual gun.

                    That doesn’t explain why, that is just your opinion that it would be. Why would it be?

                    I think your inability to answer this question says a lot.