[controversy]

My response is that everyone should carry. If the Klan goes nuts, the Klan gets shot. Eventually the system will react an equilibrium.

I agree with your freedom of association. My only note would be that removing people from the means of financial transactions is the same as limiting speech.

[ben_w]

Vengeance doesn’t bring back the dead.

The prisoner’s dilemma has the equilibrium of defect-defect.

If racists regularly shoot ethnic minorities, that means members of those minorities have good reason to shoot first in preemptive self-defence; there will inevitably be errors, and then the ethnic group the racists belong to will do the same, and suddenly you have a literal race war.

Likewise for any other distinction that people fight over besides race.

[labster]

I tend to prefer solutions to social problems where no one gets shot.

[controversy]

As do I. The fact of the matter is that the cops average 11 minutes to respond in good areas. They take longer in high crime areas. Further, we've seen that the cops are generally bad people. So leave policing to the average person.

If the Klan attacks people, they can freely be shot. If the Klan parades around in their sheets, meh.

[x86_64Ubuntu]

Carrying doesn't prevent anyone from getting shot. And there were plenty of instances in the US where the Klan attacked blacks with few repercussions.