zlacker

Because you’re then routinely going about the place armed, and more likely to be the cause of violence or escalation.

In the wake of the Kyle Rittenhouse stuff I remember Americans saying that going armed to a protest (not just that guy but others) was reasonable and routine because you might need to defend yourself if things go bad. In much of the rest of the west the general idea is that if you’re going somewhere you think you might need a weapon - you probably shouldn’t go.

>>Nursie+(OP)
"and more likely to be the cause of violence or escalation."

Is there some research on this? Not just talking about guns, but even things like pepper spray.

"if you’re going somewhere you think you might need a weapon - you probably shouldn’t go."

I generally agree with this. I do wonder how this fits in the overall system. This assumes there are places that you could need a weapon, or where weapons could be used against you. It also assumes you always have a choice to avoid the area. If these high risk areas exist, how does the entire population avoid them? If that were even possible, the threats would also redistribute. Examples like Rittenhouse might be textbook for easily avoidable situations that turned bad (hence the news coverage), but I'm not sure it's representative of the full range of situations (the stuff that doesn't make the news).