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

    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?

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.