You're viewing a single thread.
There are actual reasons for people to open carry a gun. Main goal is to normalize it. Where I live a lot of people open carry, and it's no big deal, no one really cares or notices.
My neighbor moved here from California though, and she was initially terrified every time she saw someone carrying a gun here. But after awhile she got used to it as well. I haven't asked her what her current opinion is on guns, but I know she went from terrified to not caring, which would be considered a positive change from the people who are open carrying around town.
That said, I don't get the impression that most people who open carry are doing it for that reason, usually seems like it more because they want to show off.
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.
I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.
Yes, very good, you know a famous saying.
Maybe instead of arming queers to shoot bigots, we do something societally about the bigots?
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!
Normalize carrying a deadly weapon that can near-instantly kill several people at once everywhere you go... You realize how insane that sounds, right!? Other countries are laughing at us!
Inferiority complexes do that to people.
You were so concerned with the undesirability of fear that you forgot why humans naturally experience fear in the first place.
"Don't worry, if you keep your hand on the burner long enough, you'll feel nothing at all!"
Normalize carrying rpg's to the grocery store to protect yourself from dad pranks like tapping your shoulder
/s
I see no reason to normalize open carry when even just owning a firearm, on its own, increases your chance to be killed by a gun for both suicide and homicide. Firearm ownership itself should not be normalized, as a matter of public health.
I get that it makes people feel safer, but it does not actually make them safer. If you don't have an obvious reason to have a firearm, like defending livestock, living in a high-risk environment, or as protection against wild animals, then you are objectively safer not owning one.
Normalize something that shouldn't exist, and has no reason to?
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.
Several Lemmy communities just straight up delete non-groupthink opinions, even if they don't violate any apparent rules. That's way worse here than reddit ever was.
Are you not familiar with how The_Donald operated or how r/Conservative still operates? There are plenty of subreddits that censor any and all dissenting viewpoints. It happens here too, but I think Reddit's much worse.
Good old Lemmy, where providing a different perspective gets you downvoted to hell simply because it's not the popular view.
You mean the view "let's normalize making life more dangerous for no reason?"
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.
Are you guys so fragile in your beliefs that you can't even handle a simple suggestion of a benefit to an opposing view?
What was the benefit again? Normalizing doing it is not a benefit on its own.
"Can someone explain the benefit of wearing your underwear on the outside of your pants?"
"To normalize wearing your underwear on the outside of your pants"
So it's just a fashion statement then?
When someone asks "seriously, what is the argument for doing this, what is the benefit?" A response that exists solely of "to get other people to do it too" does not answer the question as to why that is desirable.
If we move the theoretical out of fashion and into safety, such as someone complaining about people insisting on lying face down in the middle of the street, a response of "they do this to normalize people lying face down in the middle of the street" should not be received well. All it's doing is advocating for making people less safe with zero justification as to why.
Main goal is to normalize it.
There is a period of US history well known for open carrying.
It's also a period of US history well known for shootings.
If your purpose is to normalize it, and it's normal where you live, then you can stop.
Main reasons historically were for work or hunting ... maaayybe to make sure you don't leave the gun somewhere or forget you have it while transporting it.
Congratulations on a take just about perfectly as shitty as most of the replies you've got so far. Just. Wow.