• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

    • stephen01king@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

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

        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.

        • stephen01king@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months 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
            ·
            5 months 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.