• stephen01king@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 个月前

    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.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      6 个月前

      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
        ·
        6 个月前

        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
          ·
          6 个月前

          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
            ·
            6 个月前

            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
                    6 个月前

                    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?