"Thank god you're here, man openly carrying! I feel so much safer around you!"
"Heh. Yeah, I'm sure. People respect me when I'm carrying."
"Oh, no, I don't mean it like that. I mean that if an actual gunman starts shooting, you're a much higher priority target, giving me enough time to run away. Thank you for painting a target on yourself for us!"
One of the things that really angers me about supposed second amendment supporters is their quiet acceptance of laws infringing on my right to bear any arm that is not a gun. In most states where it is legal to carry guns around, there are way more restrictions on carrying things like knives, swords, polearms, etc.
Reminds me of messer blades. Basically local governments said swords weren't allowed so the people made extra long "knives" with a few sword features removed. Very similar to AR "pistols" today
But yeah good ole fashioned medieval weapons would be awesome to try out and own
It's not really an actual problem more than it is a fashion statement, which is against the ideals of people trying to use it as a legitimate self defense tool if all else fails.
Most people want to live a normal life. Go to places with family and friends etc. Having a gun is a personal choice, and those that choose to carry usually feel that if they have the capability to carry legally and safely to do so just in case no other help can get to you in time. Similar to wearing a seatbelt without expecting an accident to occur. And if it's not for you it's okay we understand.
Open carry has a place. On police officers, in wilderness areas where predators are common, and on range days. But at a restaurant or store is NOT one of those places you should open carry even if you can legally.
It brings all the attention to you and your gun and usually gives off a negative first impression. Any "bad guy" will simply target you first and by surprise. Or take your gun's value as a sign of how much expendable income you have. And it brings about unwanted interactions as seen in the comic, but if you are open carrying maybe you are probably looking for that reaction and in that case it's not purely self defense it's attention seeking.
I carry a concealed gun when I can, I respect responsible gun owners but open carry people are not responsible in my eyes. They make us all look bad imo.
You're also leaving out that some people feel uncomfortable around firearms. Always forgetting about empathy. I could walk around with clothing that makes people feel uncomfortable, but I don't because that would be inconsiderate of me.
Also, just FYI, even CC doesn't really help you. It puts you more at risk in most cases, and it's often especially bad when dealing with cops. Of course that depends a lot on where you are and what you look like though. Some cops might show you respect for CCing, rather than the typical fear and panic. If you need to use it, a "good guy with a gun" looks exactly the same as the bad guy.
Yeah it goes without saying that a gun being displayed out in the open by an unknown person is going to make people uncomfortable, and nobody will want to talk to them.
I've talked with my local cops when I was a firefighter. They are okay with concealed carry and understand it's a increasingly common thing. They told me to be sure my weapon was holstered or dropped as soon as it isn't needed anymore and wait for them to arrive.
Long response times in my area is the biggest thing for me. That's not just a factor for guns but also for the medical stuff and fire extinguisher I have in my car because fire/ems is the same way.
I'm not sure I follow, you are after all in your right to dress how you see fit even if someone else finds it uncomfortable. Pardon the obvious, but quite a few people are uncomfortable around queer people, and you know damn well the queer should never apologize for that!
I believe open carrying is linked strongly to the identity of these people (but, you know, stupider), the same way people wear anarchist symbols or define themselves as Marxist/Leninists/whatever. They live the "don't step on me" life. And as long as it stays as a political statement itself, it's their right.
Open carrying of course has a lot more problems with it than a pride flag on your shirt, but that doesn't seem to be what the comic is about.
The uncomfortable people feel around firearms is much different than around queer people. Hand guns are designed to kill people. That's the only reason these exist. It's fear of life for some people, which is pretty reasonable. I'm sure that's part of the point though. People are less likely to confront them when they do something bad because they fear retaliation.
It's also not a part of who they are. Queer people are queer. People who open carry aren't different when they don't open carry. It doesn't change who they are internally if they don't open carry.
We take people's comfort into account in society. I can't walk around exposing myself, for example, because it makes people uncomfortable. You can walk around exposing your weapon though, which is likely just as bad or worse for some people.
It goes further than that too. Personally, I wouldn't wear a piece of clothing designed to offend someone. (Note: not the same as someone being offended by something else, like a pride flag, that isn't designed to offend.) I'm pretty confident most people do this because it's the right thing to do. Hopefully people who own firearms have empathy and consider how it makes others feel, and also don't want to make people uncomfortable.
It’s also not a part of who they are. Queer people are queer. People who open carry aren’t different when they don’t open carry. It doesn’t change who they are internally if they don’t open carry.
I hope you don't need me to point out the uncomfortable parallelism here: You can be a lib. owning jackass at home, but don't be it in public, please conform to societal norms.
Again, it's not open carrying to make anyone uncomfortable to them, it's expressing who they are politically. Just that the way they chose to express it is inherently problematic, but nonetheless, personal expression trumps making others uncomfortable.
I meant open-carrying compared to concealed carrying, both have similar impacts on gun violence I imagine, while the comic only ridicules open carrying.
I live in a country where carrying weapons isn't a thing. But being that it's lawfull in the country where this comic is supposedly happening can you imagine walking into a bar and some random chick starts screaming at you like that?
Imagine if instead of a chick screaming about the guy it would be a guy screaming about a chick with purple hair?
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.
Neither does the act of putting a gun in a holster, does it?
Lol look up accidental deaths from guns in the US. Having a gun in any situation ups the chance someone will be shot or die. We hear about it on the news all the time. People left their gun in a bathroom, people didn't use their holster right and shot themselves/someone else, a child got their parent's gun and harmed themselves or someone else. I've literally watched people drop their gun out of the shitty holsters they buy.
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.
Ok, being that I am on the spectrum myself I really hope this doesn't come across offensive: are you autistic?
Because that's the only way I can fathom you taking this literally. It's a comic. I can assure you the artist never did this in real life. They are using art as an expression to point out that this dude's entire bearing - the way he carries himself, the fact that he chooses to aggressively display his firearm, the clothing that he wears - is accomplishing the exact same thing that the woman in the comic is doing. It is intended to obnoxious, as it is pointing out that he is obnoxious for portraying himself that way.
Metaphor, allegory, art, my friend. It's not literal.
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.
Art is catharsis. People who are "cheering" for it are doing so because it resonates with them, because seeing a jackass get ridiculed and made uncomfortable is a reversal of the usual state of things, not because they think it's actually a good idea. The juxtaposition of a woman loudly narrating the exact thing that the guy is already wordlessly broadcasting is not to paint the action as anyone's goal but to give those of us who feel terrorized by someone trying to show off how "badass" they are a bit of a laugh. It's not a vote or endorsement for that kind of behavior; it's more like an expression of schadenfreude or an acknowledgement of intrusive thoughts.
With your reasoning there isn't a problem either with bringing a nuclear bomb into a bar. What? I'm not setting it off! I'm just sitting here enjoying my drink with my nuke right next to me. I'm not bothering anyone, so why is the entire town running in fear? Pussies! That's what I say. It's not like I'm going to use this...
And comic strips aren't meant to be taken literally as situations with nuance and reversibility. It's an artist sharing a message of their own, you can take it or leave it, to "both sides" it makes me deeply puzzled.
If it were any other period in history I would be astonished that anyone could take the actions of an artistic device as literal interpretations of events, real or hypothetical... but then I remind myself that millions of men have just explained to women why bears are more dangerous when presented with the question which was feared more, so I am now convinced that nobody can see outside their own bubble-universes anymore.
Regarding your last point: With the various engagement-increasing algorithms driving what information you actually see, it can be a challenge to see outside your own bubble. It takes active effort to not just see your own perspective reflected back at you and that's by design.
A lot of people won't engage with content they disagree with and engagement drives ad revenue so it behooves companies that only care about revenue to not challenge a user's beliefs unless it's something extreme enough for the user to engage out of rage and disgust (which is how chuds like Andrew Tate get promoted). It's hard to see the otherside's genuine viewpoint when it's constantly filtered through the lens of your own side (or what the algorithm thinks your side is).
My first thought as well. But that's a deeply sensitive topic in American election campaigns, so it's safest for us outsiders to not express an opinion about it whatsoever.
Honestly I'll take the down votes over keeping to myself, some things just need to be said.
I'm not defending the people who open carry, I'm just pointing out how promoting hate and outrage can't be justified just because you agree with this particular case
Imagine if instead of a chick screaming about the guy it would be a guy screaming about a chick with purple hair?
I'm going to blow your mind here, but this was a comic strip and the character was drawn to be announcing things as a representation of what's happening inside the mind of the subject walking. It's an artistic/comedic effect and to take it literally or even remotely as a "both sides" issue is peak... something I can't say without getting banned most likely.
I was getting into my car the other day and noticed someone getting out of their car and putting a pistol into their wasteband. Looked like they were going into a Buffalo wild wings or something. Like, are you gonna shoot someone in there or what?
My thing is, you're usually introducing a firearm into a situation where there likely wasn't one previously, and are putting at risk the lives of everyone around you. I own a firearm and I hope every day I never ever have to use it outside of recreation. Most gun owners are exceptionally irresponsible and don't give weapons their due respect, this is half the reason so many people get shot for no reason in the US.
I carry a gun. Inside my waistband and under a shirt like a fucking adult. Open carrying out in the wilderness, for work or on a range is understandable.
Randos carrying in public is pure cringe and is super counterproductive to the goal of practical responsible gun ownership as I see it.
Umm yeah we live in a society so I guess every action is political from that perspective. I worked as a firefighter for several years. I know the response times for police and fire/ems and they aren't that good.
Appendix solves a lot of this. Printing can happen but a ton of it is easily avoided
Yeah, being a first responder really changed my perspective on a lot of "safe" areas" and how far help is.
When you have one lone deputy in your entire county for a good portion of the night (and frequently only 2-3 cars during the day), and state is just on call, not patrolling... you can easily be 45 minutes out from LEO, that's been a very long wait before...
Everyone else did a good job of listing the rest so I figured it was implied so here goes.
Open carrying makes you a bigger target to hypothetical mass shooters because you are the biggest threat to them and will be targeted first before you can react.
It makes you a bigger target to hypothetical robbers who use your weapon to size up how much money you have/make.
It is clearly visible so the chance of social interaction goes up (see comic)
It puts guns as front and center as your whole personality. Showing anything as your whole personality is not great, but something controversial and divisive is worse.
And nearly all of this is avoidable by simply concealed carrying if you want to be armed.
Open carriers show off two major things, and neither one of them are "tough guy".
First is fragile masculinity, they are worried that they aren't seen as "manly" enough, so they have to show off to everyone that they are totally manly. It's like women wearing that new handbag out and about, they want others to notice it.
Second is pure fear, fear that at any time any moment something is going to happen, and the only way they feel safe is by carrying a lethal weapon with them at all times. You know, rather than dealing with what is causing the fear in the first place.
So, we have a terrified person carrying a lethal weapon who is worried about what everyone around them think. To me, that's the more worrying person in a room.
Nah they say they are, but they're scared boys walking around with it. The like to LARP thinking they'll need to use it, but actually using it on someone is terrifying.
Fear indeed. I went to college in a very... provincial small city. Riding my bicycle around, I was regularly harassed by insecure assholes in pickup trucks, and run off the road twice. The one time I managed to get a license plate, the police claimed that without witnesses, they couldn't do anything. ACAB.
I added my 1911 to the strap of my messenger bag, at the top of my left shoulder, where the stainless frame would be plainly visible. I was suddenly given plenty of space on the road and even got occasional compliments when waiting at stoplights. It's disgusting that I would be a target for bullying without my pistol, but suddenly I was an okay guy with my penis extension where douchebag drivers could see it.
So yeah, I'm living proof that non-military open carry is only for scaredy cats.
The one time I managed to get a license plate, the police claimed that without witnesses, they couldn't do anything. ACAB.
It sucks but unless he hurt you, hit your bike, or you have any sort of footage what is the police suppose to do? Show up, he denies everything and that's it.
If they could charge him on your claims alone, think about the scary consequences of such a "legal" system.
It sucks but unless he hurt you, hit your bike, or you have any sort of footage what is the police suppose to do?
It's worth noting that most American states have a "3 foot law" that requires vehicles to pass bikers with at least 3 feet of space. (Often, drivers are also required to completely change lanes when doing so, although that varies more by state and by the width of the lane on that particular road.) If a driver in one of the 39 states runs a biker off the road, even if they never physically contacted the person on the bike, they almost certainly violated the "3 foot law."
Yes, police often won't investigate or bring charges, and yes, it sucks, but most of those dangerous drivers are indeed breaking the law.
I never questioned that. I even went with OP's story, chose to believe they told the complete truth. But they complained about police not doing anything and the shitty reality of it is that without any kind of evidence the police cannot do anything.
I think we're both in agreement about the result, but we shouldn't forget that testimony is evidence. The chump behind the wheel will deny it, so you'll have conflicting testimonial evidence, but until recently, this was usually all the evidence any prosecutor had. We've gotten too used to video evidence and now police won't act without it, even though it's not legally required. It just provides a convenient excuse for cops not to bother when they don't care.
OK, you're right. Ideally, the police should just follow up and not predict the result since that's the judge's job, not theirs.
I don't think there are many countries with such a low crime rate where police can really work that close to the book though. And I think there are "better" examples for "ACAB" in the US.
In most jurisdictions, a note could be put on the driving record. If a pattern on aggressive driving were to be established, a prosecutorial or civil suit effort would have an easier time of litigating against that driver.
In my case, yes, there was paint damage from my bike, which would be evidence.
I had the talk with a friend once who did it, told him I didn't feel comfortable. We went to a fast food place and told him to look around, people weren't admiring him, they were afraid of him. Luckily he saw reason and stopped wearing it shortly after.
Yeah you definitely get a daily carry that's under 600 bucks. Even that's a lot. You get your nice gun in that evidence locker and you aren't ever getting it back.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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 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.
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 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 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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Honestly? Nearly a decade of working contract security, including most of that time being level 3,
I can easily say that I’d rather not be armed.
First, carrying visible weapons makes people respond differently. They see you’re armed and everyone reacts to it. Its mere presence escalates situations.
Secondly, your very question implies the trap always being armed leads to- you assume this man is aggressive or hostile. And most often that assumption is flat wrong.
When all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail.
Finally, situation awareness is infinitely more valuable than any weapon. You lose every fight you get into. Even if the other guy doesn’t harm you, if you draw down and shoot, you’re going to jail. You’re going to be held until they know what happened, and you’re probably getting charged.
You lose on legal fees. You probably lose your job. And now you have to live with guilt- even if the subject had it coming.
Also just a side note I was discussing open carry. Concealed is a different matter; concealed properly, no one will know until you draw. (And then things escalate fucking fast.)