• skisnow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    There seems to be the implication within that quote that because he’s brought a melee weapon, the party being attacked is bound by honor not to use a firearm.

    In fact he’s probably putting himself in much more danger by bringing a sword (thereby providing a self-defense defense) than if he showed up unarmed.

    • Bazell@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      Aren’t most of squatters are relatevely poor people, who cannot easily buy a gun unless they are a part of a gang?

      • ecvanalog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        This is a country where there are more legal guns than there are people. You don’t think ANYONE ina bad economic situation is traveling with the gun they owned before they lost their housing?

        • Bazell@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          Assuming that this law even exist in such country, your statement does sound logical. Still, I cannot understand why then no one is trying armed revolution against the current government if everyone knows about current USA president? I mean, in other countries people do such protests without guns in many cases and achieve success. Like in Ukraine, for example.

          P. S. Yeah, I kinda changed the topic. Sorry.

          • ecvanalog@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 days ago

            Because huge chunks of the country continue to love him. He might be leading us into economic collapse, but at least he’s being shitty to brown and queer people, which is obviously the most important thing.