That sucks that it's got to the point you feel like you need it but to be honest even just as a deterrent (even if you or others think it looks goofy to wear one) would be WELL worth it to wear one. I don't think it requires outside validation for that.
this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2025
111 points (91.7% liked)
Ask Lemmy
28754 readers
1354 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
No, but then I haven't had the kinds of experiences you've had.
Maybe you could try those glasses that have a camera
I can kind of understand, but I'm utterly disgusted of people who record public spaces like random streets. let us have some privacy!
at the same time it's sad that this is needed
Like I said, it feels lame, but in all the incidences that I've been in (whether or not I've responded), no one in the community ever reprimands the other or even stays to confirm the circumstances to the cops. Their lack of action just serves as motivation for these guys to continue b/c no one will call them out for their behavior.
So there's this, or something even more extreme, which I'm not ruling out at this point. I live in america after all.
load more comments
(2 replies)
A camera's cool, but you should probably also carry a weapon. Yes, even when you're just walking the dog. What starts as a threat today can become an attack tomorrow.
Not sure I would call it a weapon, but I carry pepper spray when I take my dog on walks. It's mainly in case any other dogs decide to mess with us, but it's something.
Carrying a gun increases your own chance of getting shot.
Doesn't have to be a gun.
What, carry a knife do you can stab a car?
Knife, pepper spray, taser, air gun, brass knuckles, monkey fist... There's lots of options if you can't or don't want to carry a gun. But you unless you can fight, you shouldn't go unarmed.
This is assuming OP is in the US. Right now they should be taking any racially-charged threats very seriously, as fascists are becoming more and more emboldened. If OP's aggressor decides to escalate things and get physical, camera isn't going to do much when the police and the courts are on the other side, anyway. Other than make for a really depressing snuff film.
Unless OP lives in a civilized country. In which case, maybe keep a really good flashlight with you on your walks, too.
til what a monkey fist is
And thanks, i've dealt with this my entire life watching others just walk by and say nothing. So, at this point, it's just getting tiresome.
If the police and courts are stacked against you having a weapon is just going to increase your jail sentence.
Ask any minority in the US about that.
True. But it's either that, or whatever the racist yokel intercepting you on your next walk has in store for you.
With one option, you get a public defender, at the very least. The other option, your next of kin gets a really somber phone call. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
load more comments
(11 replies)
I'm thinking of doing so concealed and only drawing it in self-defense. So they wouldn't know I had one until they demonstrated lethal aggression first...for which the camera will provide evidence.
But tbh, even having the camera sort of takes me off edge so I don't feel as argumentative. I'll just post the video to the neighborhood app after walking away.
I think CCW is a pretty good idea if this is already a reoccurring problem. Definitely don't plan on brandishing it, but the way you will feel while some asshole tries to degrade you is a special one. You also need to practice, regularly.
Correlation is not causation.
Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.
Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.
Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).
Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.
Thanks for posting that! I read through it, and I don't think that it applies to the situation described by the original poster. It includes many interactions where both sides were intoxicated in some way, and had a criminal history. They did some interesting work in matching controls to the victims of gun assaults, but as the limitations section discusses, it really doesn't apply to a "responsible armed citizen" scenario, which is how I interpreted the recommendation above.
It is certainly still plausible that merely having a gun does not protect one very well from assault. The potential mechanisms of causation that the study authors came up with make for an interesting read, but the risk numbers don't really seem to connect to those mechanisms.
I think there are pretty good reasons to say that more firearms in private hands is a detriment from a public health perspective. I just don't think that this study adds much to that conversation.
load more comments
(6 replies)