As in, trolling people to believe these things actually happen, I think.

There’s difficulty, then there’s balancing issue. We expect difficulty, but not invalidating certain builds entirely.

Thanks to recessive genes, it’s definitely possible for two paint brushes to birth another form of brush.

There are lots of comments on that thread trying to divert the issue by pointing out the violence done by the western countries. I would assume his comment was in response to one of these comments, so he wouldn’t be the one to bring up the West into the discussion.

He’s only offering a reason, not necessarily that he supports the reason. Are you guys so fragile in your beliefs that you can’t even handle a simple suggestion of a benefit to an opposing view?

A suggestion of a benefit to open-carrying does not equal endorsement, nor does it mean opposing the view that open-carrying can be dangerous. Try to be more open-minded.

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.

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?

That doesn’t sound especially plausible.

Can you explain why?

And, again, I never said they were a deterrent, you did.

You said a stun gun is a deterrent. You also claimed they are the same level of deterrent as a gun.

I never made a claim that they were a deterrent. I was merely responding to your claim that they were.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

When judging the action presented in the comics, who really cares whether it happened or not. I’m not judging the author for something he did, but something that a lot of people in this thread seems to be cheering for, which is to scream at people for doing something they disagree with and think as pathetic. You know, the type of behaviour that the American Conservative like to do to people they don’t like. Those kinds of behaviour are just horrible, imo, regardless of how good your intention for doing it is.

As for whether I’m autistic, I don’t know. I’ve never tried getting a diagnosis.

Why would you attack someone just for being queer?

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?

And which of those situations are improved by you screaming at a person walking around with a holstered gun? Does it make them more likely to conceal carry or not bring a gun at all? I would say in most situations, people who already open carry will be more encouraged to do so by your actions.

I consider actions like these as being more damaging to the anti-gun movement than anything.

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.

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.

Good old Lemmy, where providing a different perspective gets you downvoted to hell simply because it’s not the popular view. I’d even say we are much worse than Reddit when it comes to this, which is ironic.

What claim did he make that require a citation?

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.

Neither does the act of putting a gun in a holster, does it? It’s not like she’s screaming at a guy brandishing a gun around, was she? Now that would be something worthy of screaming about.