491
Right to Flex Arms
(lemmy.sdf.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
491 points (90.0% liked)
Comic Strips
12509 readers
2804 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Why should we normalize carrying weapons around in daily life?
They have to protect themselves from all the people carrying weapons around them, of course!
Armed queers don't get bashed.
Maybe instead of arming queers to shoot bigots, we do something societally about the bigots?
Because I am not seeing how the queer person getting tried for murder or manslaughter helps matters.
I'll check back with you in 50 years on that societal change. Meanwhile, people that want to protect themselves against violent bigots within their lifetime should probably get a gun.
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?
Why would you attack someone just for being queer?
That's still not an answer. Please answer the question.
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?
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.
Maybe you should answer the question, then, since you claim the bigots would just attack a queer open-carrying a gun from the back. You even claim they would rather shoot them instead of backing off if they open carry. What reason are these claims are based on, then?
Also, why are you avoiding answering my question, then? Is the logical inconsistency in your own argument prevents you from providing an answer?
In other words, you cannot give an explanation for why a bigot would attack a queer person with a stun gun on their belt.
Believe it or not, repeatedly asking me questions when you refuse to answer mine only shows that.
Sounds like a stun gun would be fine.
And you're avoiding answering the exact same question for why you claim they would still attack a queer open-carrying a gun.
I cannot really answer specifically since I have no idea how the bigots think, but my logic is based on the logic you presented first, which is that open-carrying a gun won't stop a bigot from attacking a queer person. Now you're trying to completely ignore the fact that you presented the logic first, and repeatedly ignoring my attempt at pointing it out.
Why are you trying to be so disingenuous when we were having a pretty civil discussion before?
Why don't you finally answer this question. If you believed, as you claim before, that a queer open-carrying a gun still runs risk of being attacked by bigots, why would you also believe that open carrying a stun gun would deter them?
You are correct. I will not answer your question when you won't answer mine. But at least you finally admitted that you actually can't explain why a bigot would attack a queer person with a stun gun on their belt.
You said a gun on their belt was a deterrence. My question was based on that.
Your admittance that you can't answer my question shows that the answer is that if it is a deterrent, so is a stun gun.
I already did answer, you were just to stubborn to see it. I said I cannot really answer, since I don't have an understanding on how bigot's mind works, and my claim was simply that a stun gun is less of a deterrent than an actual gun.
And I already countered that by pointing out that the difference in level of lethality between the two means the amount of risk a bigot would have to face in order to attack a queer is different, therefore they do not have the same level of deterrence.
I have also not denied when you claimed that a gun is not a complete deterrence, so why would repeatedly asking me why a stun gun would not completely deter a bigot make any sense in this context? I was using the same logic as you did when you said a gun doesn't completely deter attackers.
On the other hand, it was you who claimed that both of these things have the same level of deterrence and refusing to answer my question of why that would be. Why don't you finally answer that question and stop derailing the conversation.
I see... so this would be a person who is so extremely stupid that they would attack someone with a stun gun on their belt, but not a regular gun.
That doesn't sound especially plausible.
And, again, I never said they were a deterrent, you did. I can't answer why they would have the same level of deterrence when, yet again, I never made a claim that they were a deterrent. I was merely responding to your claim that they were.
You seriously still can't comprehend why someone would more likely attack someone with a less than lethal weapon than someone with a lethal weapon?
Can you explain why?
You said a stun gun is a deterrent. You also claimed they are the same level of deterrent as a gun.
And that's where the communication breaks down, I think. My point is not that guns are an effective deterrent, but I was explaining that from the perspective of the queers that live among bigots, they would only open-carry if they think that doing so would reduce the risk of being attacked. You then provided an alternative method of carrying a stun gun. Is it wrong to assume that you were claiming stun guns are an effective deterrent, then?
Okay, you're clearly not actually reading my comments since I've said multiple times now that I am not claiming that either are deterrents, so I'm just going to end this conversation. If you're not going to read my comments, there's no point in continuing.
I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.
Yes, very good, you know a famous saying.
Since there's no practical way to do something about the fact that bigots exist, the next best thing is to constantly appropriate their aesthetic.
Make open-carrying a gay fashion statement until the only folks who open-carry are the gays.~
Agreed, but a concealed weapon keeps you just as safe. Maybe even safer.
No, they get shot instead, much better /s
Citation needed.
You first.
What claim did he make that require a citation?
Rachel fucking Maddow probably lol
It makes sense when you realize these people are abject fucking cowards that can’t leave the house without their emotional support firearm.
They yearn for the old cowboy days.
Old cowboy days often involved checking your weapon into lockup at the edge of town...
You can tell this was a good question because they didn't answer it.
Because people want to look cool and not be judged for it!