• TimeSquirrel@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The presence of a firearm itself may have been enough to make them think twice. I mean, do you normally try to assault someone who’s visibly carrying?

      • TimeSquirrel@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Get assaulted, raped, possibly killed? Or deal with the arrest and after math of having defended yourself from such. I know which one I’d choose.

        • SharkEatingBreakfast@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m sorry, but I hate this argument… because it’s crock.

          Attackers generally do not telegraph their intentions. They often come on suddenly and unexpectedly. I’ve been assaulted before and could not have defended myself even if I wanted to. I was caught too off-guard. Having a gun would not have helped me in any of those situations.

          It’s a “I am very badass!”-solution often from folks that have never been in that vulnerable kind of position before, because if they have, they would know that it cannot be reliably executed.

    • violetraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Isn’t this what gun rights people say to women who then become statistically more likely to be shot by their own weapon?

      • Zippy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The majority of people likely would have a difficult time pulling the trigger even if they did brandish a gun. Possibly more so with women.

        So now you have any escalated situation with a much higher chance of death for the person holding the gun.