• nexguy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        4 months ago

        I guess the point is… it doesn’t matter so who cares. People used to think marrying outside your race was very very “weird”.

        • samus12345@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          4 months ago

          I don’t think marrying outside your race is the same thing as carrying a gun around pointed at your crotch.

          • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Yeah, this is a wonderful way to accidentally escalate a situation via it falling out and scaring the shit out of everyone near you, shoot yourself in the femoral artery, or maybe you just enjoy it digging into your stomach and pelvis every time you sit down or lean over…

            There are trans people who know how to carry guns. Used to be friends with one, used to go to ranges myself.

            This is not how you carry a gun.

            There are holsters and belly bands for this kind of thing.

      • Jimbabwe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        4 months ago

        With a splash of “that’s not a knife… THIS is a knife”

        There’s something inherently satisfying about the oppressed/harassed/accosted person who whips out a bigger stick and shuts that shit down.

        • Ranger@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Civil rights activist in the 60s illegally carried handguns because they would be lynched by a mob if they didn’t.

    • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s like the author trying to make fun of anti-lgbt folks yet have them ask “which do you prefer” and also with the person having shitty concealed carry practice.

      It’s very much making fun of America of all side from what i can conclude.

  • don@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    4 months ago

    Fuck me, hold tight. There’s a gun in your trousers. What’s a gun doing in your trousers? What’s to stop it from blowing your bits off every time you sit down?

    • swim@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      4 months ago

      Passive and active safeties, a trigger guard, a stiff trigger, and, for some, not having a round in the chamber.

      • 404@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        4 months ago

        That makes it even weirder. Why would you carry a gun at this level of quick access, if the gun itself is not quick access?

        • swim@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          4 months ago

          I’m not confident your interest is genuine, as your incredulity seems intent on maligning gun owners, but giving you the benefit of the doubt and for the edification of lemmy readers:

          while carrying a gun at the front of your torso does generally provide slightly quicker drawing speed on trained individuals and all things being equal, the “level of quick access” is not usually the reason to prefer this style of carry. Rather, many that choose “appendix” carry tend to do so for ergonomics and comfort.

          Also, “the gun itself is not quick access” is a misapprehension on your part; every feature I listed that you replied to, other than leaving the chamber empty, does not add any time to the deployment of the gun.

          And if you are genuinely curious, you may be interested to know that because modern firearms are so incredibly safe (like modern cars - its the people using them that make them unsafe, unlike the guns and cars of the past which were much more inherently unsafe in design), leaving the chamber empty is usually not necessary or practiced.

          They say that 50 years or so ago a method of drawing a pistol with an empty chamber and chambering a round in the same motion was made procedure by the IDF, as their weapons were coming from many disparate sources and shouldn’t be trusted to have functional firing pin safeties, etc., so they were trained to carry them with an empty chamber. Nowadays, carrying, drawing, and charging a pistol on an empty chamber is known as “Israeli carry” or “Israeli draw.”

          • 404@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            I’m sorry; I was being sarcastic. Thank you for the reply though.

            I would like to add that since everybody makes mistakes, no one can (statistically) handle a gun 100% safely 100% of the time. E.g. a carried gun is never completely safe from theft. So no carrier is “safe”, therefore no gun is “safe”. Personally I would not use that word when referring to objects designed to do harm. I don’t think a modern car is a good analogy. A better one would be “modern guillotines are incredibly safe”.

            • swim@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              I appreciate that you qualified your stated opinion with “personally,” because I agree that this is a matter of perspective.

              In my opinion, the word “safe” when applied to cars assumes we understand that traveling at 60+ MPH is itself more dangerous than standing still. Then, to call a certain car “safe” is to be using obvious relative terms; safer than this other car, rated highly by impartial safety experts, etc.

              To wit: No one in a conversation about a car’s safety would genuinely say “sure, if I buy your new vehicle I’ll be better protected on the road than any other driver of a current production mid-size sedan, thanks to all these state-of-the-art safety features, but - pray tell - how ‘safe’ can you really call this car if could be stolen from me and used to run me down?” Or “this car doesn’t seem safe, I could walk to the store and not need rollover protection.”

              I think guillotines would also work fine to illustrate the point. Guillotines are, of course, built to kill. Handled properly, I can easily imagine them being safe. If we put a rich man’s neck in it and he loses his head, that is the correct function of the tool.

              Safety is widely understood as protection from inadvertent danger. The rich man’s death was not inadvertent. The car being stolen and used against you was not inadvertent. A trained person carrying a gun is safer than not. These tools are safe.

              • 404@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                Well. Since the tools are lethal, and countries implementing the death penalty always end up killing innocent people, and more guns = more gun violence and accidents, it’s obvious to me that these tools are not safe. To me, gun safety is as applicable to the real world as the perfectly straight line in mathematics, or the perfectly rational thinker in logics…

                I’m fascinated by the emphasis on protection in your (and Americans’ in general) definition of safety. In Europe, “safe” simply means “not dangerous”. From your “wildly widely (edit: typo) understood” definition, I get the feeling that you view danger as unavoidable. Would you mind sharing your thoughts on what safety would mean to you and your community, if there was no danger to protect from? Would you still carry a gun for protection if all strangers were harmless? Have you ever visited a country where no one, not even law enforcement, carries lethal weapons? Etc.

                • swim@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  “wildly understood”

                  I said widely.

                  I don’t expect to dissolve the biases between us, but if you are trying to understand my comment, pay attention to the focus on “relatively” and “perspective:”

                  Guns, and knives, and people, are inherently dangerous. That is a given, a truism. They are to be respected - humans for their innate value, and each for their capability to harm.

                  The risk of handling knives can be mitigated with respect, forethought, training, proper application, tool maintenance, etc. The fact that they are capable of hurting us should not be forgotten, but our relationship with them need not be dominated by it. In fact, with proper safety on the part of the handler, knives can be considered “relatively safe,” especially from a statistical standpoint.

                  The same can be said for guns. And people.

    • Rawrx3
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      4 months ago

      I like my bottom surgery to come as a surprise

    • BigLgame@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Things like this https://guerrilla-tactical.com/ and proper training. I used to daily carry as a queer person in a very conservative part of the US. But I no longer do as I no longer have the time to train like I used to and handgun skills are perishable.

  • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    4 months ago

    Okay but the Foot Locker employee handbook CLEARLY prohibits carrying unofficial firearms in the front of the store.

    Turn in your badge and standard issue rifle.

    • swim@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      4 months ago

      Luckily, though, it’s clearly an official Foot Locker Nike pistol, so false alarm

  • Icalasari@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    4 months ago

    After the olympics, it’s now “What’s in your genes?” being (willfully?) mistaken as “What’s in your jeans?”

    My answer is a knife :)

  • mistrgamin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    They’re Illiterate, fuck cats, and augmented their scrotum with a Smith and Wesson. Get this person on Joe Rogan