• stephen01king
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Why would you attack someone just for being queer?

          • stephen01king
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month 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
              ·
              1 month 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.

              • stephen01king
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                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?

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

                  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.

                  • stephen01king
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    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?