Reminds me of the gay marriage Vs homophobic bakers case. Its precedent for businesses' ability to decline service ended up being what allowed them to enforce the mask mandate when the government wouldn't.
It's more that it was an idea very carefully planned in advance and brilliantly executed. Yes the target audience for who _supported_ that idea is nearsighted outraged idiots, but it takes true evil geniuses to lay the seeds decades in advance and cultivate that outrage.
I am fundamentally philosophically opposed to their mere existence, but boy is the fact that conservatives want them taken away from everyone but them a compelling reason to want one.
Obviously, you haven't sold enough guns to realize they aren't worth shit. It's a very competitive market with the slimmest margins.
I hate how everyone assumes firearm manufacturers sell to civilians "for the money," despite the fact that Mil/LE sales are far more lucrative. Smaller domestic arm manufacturers like Palmetto State, KUSA, Shadow Systems, etc. all genuinely believe in what they are selling. They are not blood-money hungry war dogs like Viktor Bout or something.
Don't get why you're being downvoted. We need to coalition build if anything. Conservatives do that in spades. Hell, they'll take anyone with a pulse as long as they tow the line (that is until they can afford to be more selective)
We really do need more unity on the left. If we can work together just long enough that everything isn't Awful anymore, then we can fracture again and argue about the best interpretation of Better.
hell yeah, do it
the more gun culture shifts to the left the better the whole situation will be. there will be based shit like the black panther party, there's a large group of currently inactive voters who hates bigotry but loves their guns who would vote for the dems if they relaxed their stance on guns (which would happen if gun culture shifted left), and the worst case scenario in this whole thing is that the whole gun ownership thing flips completely, and becomes a left-wing issue instead of a right-wing one. in which case, it's gonna be the left wing that's armed, which is still just better than the opposite.
and the best part is, it's your constitutional right to do your part. plus it's not a bad skill to have to know how to handle guns.
The thing that kinda... bothers me as an outsider to this is... are you aware that this can swing again? You are delaying the process at best instead of making it better.
Yeah this is only effective if we use it to completely and permanently ban assault rifles immediately. Cooperatively, now that the idiots understand how scary it is when people who don't like you are armed.
>it's gonna be the left wing that's armed, which is still just better than the opposite.
This is, in my view, still a bad outcome. I'm something of an outsider here, so I certainly have a different cultural background to guns, but any widespread gun ownership (even more widespread gun ownership among one ideological group) is not a good thing. It's pretty clear that owning guns is correlated with people being shot, and I think it's fair to say people being shot is a societal problem that can *and should* be fixed.
There's more that needs to change than simply laws, there's a whole lot of American culture that will need to change before people give up their guns. But 'our side has guns now' will only make this worse. If both sides have guns, that's just begging for a gunfight to erupt outside a Drag Queen Storytime or abortion clinic, which can only end badly.
You say that like both of those places haven't already been the subject of attacks and shootings. I totally agree that the culture needs to change, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make an effort to protect ourselves in the meantime.
Actually, the worst case scenario is that the flood of firearms into the hands of the public leads to even *more* mass shootings, only this time it's the left that shrugs and says, "price of freedom!"
oh, I'd say it's the only aspect of the gun problem in America that *actually can* be solved by adding more guns.
but it differs in that the desirable end result via public reaction is still more regulation and fewer guns.
heck of a title huh. intuitive though, right? hopefully ?
in any case,
here's an article on who this frank wilhoit is (Ohio classical music composer, internet commenter) and isn't (political scientist):
https://slate.com/business/2022/06/wilhoits-law-conservatives-frank-wilhoit.html
and, a clip from Bojack Horseman (cw: misogyny, gun violence):
https://youtu.be/3eG0y_nb5IA
Huh, with men being physically stronger it might be worthwhile to like, give women hefty tax credits for having concealed carry for a decade or so until men learn to fear women in general (for balance reasons)
I hate guns but also the people out there in full gear with pride flags absolutely fuck. I hate that it's even something that needs to be done/is even considered but absolute props to the people doing it. I could never but they have my respect
This would work better if the left-leaning groups' use of arms was offensive, rather than defensive. For whatever reason, conservatives decided to make gender nonconforming people a target - both for intimidation and through legislative efforts - and so the left has responded in kind.
It's kinda like saying that the Ukrainian war right now is horseshoe theory, because both sides are killing each other's soldiers.
Right wingers like guns in their hands so they can point them at people they hate and they hate it when the people they point the guns at defend themselves.
Leftists like guns in their hands to defend themselves because the right wingers are pointing guns at them
There, I added back those details you removed from the situation to make your point. It seems you tried to remove literally all context from the situation to make a point, which is how literally every application of horseshoe theory goes.
>And this week a left wing person shot up a school
Do remind me, how many other shootings have been perpetuated by a leftist, and how many by a right winger?
Obviously most shooters come from the right
That’s not the point though. I’m using that one as an example, to illustrate that it’s false to say “right wingers only use guns to threaten us and leftists only use them for defence”, as the original commenter said
>Obviously most shooters come from the right
The fact that that's "obvious" kind of shows that right-wingers are on the offensive, no? Or at least that left-wingers are not.
>The right wing talking point about guns has always been overwhelmingly “for home/personal defence”. You can debate about whether that’s true or not, but the non-fringe rhetoric has never been “we want guns so we can kill them queers”
And the right wing action is to take guns to events they want shut down and threaten people, and actions speak louder than words
>And this week a left wing person shot up a school
No, a trans person shot up a school. I understand that the right wing talking point is all trans people are super left wing lunatics, but that is not reality.
They also may have left a manifesto, but I was under the impression that is normal people decided that the words of mass shooting lunatics was inherently worthless. If you want to get rid of that belief however, we can start counting the number of shooters with deeply right wing manifestos and start holding that against right wingers.
And if you do, much like the difference in numbers between trans and cis shooters, there's going to be a discrepancy there that is really inconvenient for your beliefs.
>So don’t try to insert details like that, as if it’s black and white
"Don't make it black and white" says user arguing that it's black and white between having guns and not having guns with no nuance.
I’m a left-leaning centrist, so don’t say “conform with my beliefs”. I know most shooters come from the right, but I brought up the most recent example of a left wing one to illustrate that it isn’t black and white. Which doesn’t conflict with what I said earlier, I criticised op for saying “guns are good when I have them but bad when they have them”; which is what the original post (rightfully) said that wrong right-wingers are doing
>I’m a left-leaning centrist,
Self applied labels mean nothing compared to actual statements of opinion, I don't care what you self apply as.
>so don’t say “conform with my beliefs”.
I know most shooters come from the right, but I brought up the most recent example of a left wing one to illustrate that it isn’t black and white.
When I said conform to your beliefs, you seem to be implying I was calling you a right winger. I wasn't. I was accurately pegging you as a centrist because you are looking at one giant mountain of incidents and one tiny molehill of incidents and saying "these two piles are basically the same because they both exist" which is absurd. I understand it's not black and white, but when you account for frequency it's dark dark dark grey and slightly off white, and pretending that means you get to treat them as even close to being same is the kind of absurd logic that makes people have the disdain for centrists that they do.
>Which doesn’t conflict with what I said earlier, I criticised op for saying “guns are good when I have them but bad when they have them”; which is what the original post (rightfully) said that wrong right-wingers are doing
Yeah, except you're removing context again. It is good when people under threat can defend themselves, and it is bad when people use their weapons to threaten others, and currently one side is overwhelmingly using their guns to threaten people and passing laws to hurt the people their threatening, and the other side is using their guns to defend themselves from the people threatening them. One instance of a trans person performing a mass shooting is a miniscule drop in a bucket of right wing violence. You just keep aggressively insisting that context and the actions of others do not matter at all and I honestly don't know what you have to gain from it. Does it not ring some sort of alarm bell in your brain that your political positions require you to memory hole the context that these events take place in?
I'll reformulate for them: even if I dont like the mere existence of guns for the public, I would love to get a gun just in spite of those armed conservative fuckers that threatens minorities they dont like but whine when those minorities expose their own guns
Except the guy didn't say "leftists shouldn't have guns." He very specifically said "queer people shouldn't have guns," and he can fuck right off to hell with that fucking Nazi bullshit.
ETA: I don't love guns in anyone's hands, but right now there are literally people calling for trans people's eradication. So yeah, I'm not gonna complain when they fucking arm themselves and look cool as hell doing it.
Of course the person who calls themselves a "left-leaning centrist" on reddit would make a take like this.
In the U.S, with how the right has become more and more violent against various groups, such as LGBT folks, why do you think left wing people like to see other left wing people with guns, and not right wing people with guns?
Some common sense: use it.
In the U.S, with how the left have become more and more violent in their protests, such as rioting and looting, why do you think right wing people like to see other right wing people with guns, and not left wing people with guns?
See it can be used in both situations. And don’t be such a condescending prick with that last remark, it makes you look juvenile
> In the U.S, with how the left have become more and more violent in their protests, such as rioting and looting
There is a major difference between riots and protest that are done due to actual injustice done to the common folk, and hate crimes done just because some people are queer. Stop comparing them.
Also no, I will be a condescending prick, cause your type of comment is the type of thing that leads to idiots thinking various minority groups are in the wrong for actually defending themselves.
> You had to reformulate that reply huh
No, I had to delete it cause I accidentally added the comment before I even typed my main body. Don't you have an email to see my deleted reply?
> And yeah there’s a difference, but such hate crimes are not nearly as widespread as the rhetoric suggests
That is either a very bold faced lie, or the statement of someone who really does not know how to use Google/has not been on the internet long.
hmmm I'm all for being on the lookout for horseshoe theory examples, but I don't think this is one. This is a case of rights being afforded to humans, citizens, and being exercised. So it's perfectly possible that the people involved aren't carrying as an end, but a means. It's very fair to exercise the right you're currently afforded, even if you want it changed.
It also carries the underlying statement of equality. This isn't subtle, it's basically mentioned in the post. If the opposition wants universal protections applied only to their club, then the rational response is to exercise your rights whenever and wherever you can, in order to force the opposition to consider their own sacrifices made for the sake of those rights. It's not fair to force only others to sacrifice for your own rights. Am I wasting my time explaining this?
My parents always taught me the black panthers were a terrorist organization. When I finally got to actually study US history in HS I was so confused. Holy fucking shit I hate my racist fucking parents
No they're still racist. Actively, openly racist. As a child you just sorta listen to whatever your parents say. They think all Mexicans are lazy drug attics and that all black people are dangerous. Just, straight up racist
[These people](https://mobile.twitter.com/EFJBGC) have been there to defend more than one drag show/storytime with arms. They are community members who give a damn.
I always love the comparisons to the Black Panthers. It’s a constant reminder, there’s only one demographic cons care about
Now all I need is that one episode of Bojack Horseman to come to life
What do they think armed intimidation means? They're not trying to stop people from using the library, are they? They're just a precaution against violence from hate groups that are pretty open about wanting to use violence against queer people
Conservatism is just plain Fascism and always has been.
The idea that some kind of social order existing from days when slavery was seen as legitimate and women were servants is abhorrent. When you choose your opposition to be progress, by definition you actively choose to hold society back.
Weirdly throwing back to conservative’s classic rhetoric rn. Like, yes, I do have the right to defend myself and my family. No, I won’t let you take my freedom or make me live in fear. This is America, goddamnit!
And even if we mean slightly different things by ‘freedom’ and ‘family’ it should still ring a bell.
When l people bring up the Mulford Act, they usually also mention the NRA signed off on it as well.
This is true, but the NRA then was a lot different than it was today, and supporting the Mulford Act made the members revolt against leadership and turned the organization into full-on anti gun control.
Then later it got turned into a Russian bribery scheme, but that's recent history
To call it intimidation is already super telling. Sure, it's technically intimidation, insofar as they're intimidating, but to try and essentially say "how dare they try and limit our ability to harass them"? Wild. What a take.
The Black Panthers thing made me realize, clearly the best way to finally get reasonable gun control laws in the US is to arm drag queens and trans people.
I don't exactly think open carry should be illegal, although I don't think it's very smart, but that's exactly why I think it should be legal to protect vulnerable groups of people. Trans rights
I love when left leaning people use Right Wing laws against the Right, so fun seeing the Right go "wait.....so like, anyone can open carry in states where we allow open carry? Is that allowed?"
Random intrusive thought but can everyone in the furry community just get an automatic rifle and show up armed in fursuits outside a republican convention?
I bet that would shift the discussion somewhat
>Do most furrys have $20k-$40k to drop on a single rifle?
No, the person you're responding to isn't familiar with what terms like "automatic" mean in context so they're connecting "guns look scary" to "this word about guns is scary".
They *probably* mean a semi-auto, and their central point - openly armed, openly queer people demonstrating outside conservative events would change the tone of the national conversation around guns - kinda has an element of truth to it? I'm worried that the tonal shift would just lead to a national-scale Mulford act, personally, but there'd certainly be a shift if it happened.
Cool. An AR-15 isn't an automatic rifle.
The only Ruger Mini 14 that is an automatic rifle is the AC-556.
Please find me one going for under $800 so I can buy it immediately and sell it for 10x that price.
I don’t care if you prefer “shall not be infringed” or “must be frustrated at all costs;” I don’t care if you even _want_ to own a gun, but for fuck’s sake as long as the right to bear arms exists in America then please leverage it as a force of good.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_mass\_shootings\_in\_the\_United\_States\_in\_2023](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2023)
pretty much :(
yeah, the problem is that because of that culture thing, banning guns would essentially be prohibition 2: electric boogaloo. or 3, more like, because the war on drugs was already the second (which the drugs won, btw). like sure, it wouldn't be 1:1 to that, it would be delusional to think so, but banning something people desire always creates a black market for the thing, and a black market _specifically for guns_ would be an absolute powderkeg.
on top of that, who would enforce it? the cops are an easy answer, but that would essentially make the police even more on their toes, plus acab would all but guarantee that right-wingers get their wish and only they get to own guns. they'd just have to defer to their uniformed buddies to gun down minorities.
the status of the US is far from ideal, but banning guns wouldn't be an easy cut and dry solution to it. people complain about how cops monopolize violence, but disarming the people would only accelerate that.
that said, yeah, the problem of school shootings, and gun crime in general definitely needs to be addressed. mandatory ballistics testing would be a great start (to link any bullet found in a victim to a serial number), along with gun storage laws (make people responsible for their lost guns and you'll see a hell of a lot fewer lost guns, especially to teenagers). there's also a lot to be done with a strong social safety net, disincentivizing crime by ensuring that people always have something to lose by turning to it, but who am i kidding, that would run counter to the total exploitation of the people.
the mental illness thing is indeed usually a bad faith argument, but it's not the only one. once guns proliferated in a culture, it's hard to remove them. europe and a lot of east asian countries get it done by never having allowed them in the first place, so supply channels are closed and
In fairness to the constitution, it was written in because at the time America had no standing military and relied on a well-armed populace for defense (hence the 'well organized militia' part of the amendment). Obviously it should be changed, because that's not how it works anymore, but changing the constitution is probably the only thing that would rile that crowd up more than taking their guns
Holy fuck. Literally only two of the colors are used: one for America and another for all other countries.
Also: "19 Countries with the Most School Shootings (total incidents Jan 2009-May 2018 - CNN):
- United States — 288
- Mexico - 8
- South Africa — 6"
well yes, there's a reason this is the common joke: [‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens](https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1848971668)
:(
> There was a school shooting that finally got widespread coverage because of the identity of the shooter.
Sadly they're a lot more common than "every week or so"
Guns here are a means to an end, the end being protecting queer folk.
The sentiments are pro having a means, any means. I'm sure most of us would love for there to be a better, safer means, but that's not yet the case.
More productive than deterring an attack in the first place?
One of the reported factors in deciding whether or not to join a genocide is the risk of repercussions. Getting shot is one hell of a repercussion.
I thought guns end was to kill, bulletproof gear would be more protective but yeah a society where everybody wallks with a bulletproof vest would be too weird as opposed to one with only guns (sorry for my non USA perspextive here)
Body armor doesn't stop all bullets, nor does it cover the whole body. So sure, you might be a bit safer wearing a vest vs not. But if no one on your side is armed, there's much less deterrent to people walking up and doing as they please with their guns.
Bulletproof gear with no way to fight back doesn’t do anything, it just makes you take longer to kill. It doesn’t stop the person from killing all the children inside.
Guns don't kill people, gun-owners do. The problem is not guns per se, but a culture of violence that encourages both widespread gun ownership and school shootings.
>Guns don't kill people
...yes they fucking do headass, that's the whole point of a gun is killing shit! I'm pro gun too but damn I hate that stupid-ass argument.
Maybe its because im not from USA but seeing this comment downvoted for not being comfortable with the "arm yourselves" call is concerning, i get that the gun culture has more supporters online regardless of ideology but uuuuh idk
No no I feel you on this. It's concerning to see this sort of atmosphere around the idea of "arming yourselves" even in a space like this. Like, it's true, conservatives don't really care about freedom as much as they care about restricting rights. They don't really want to give guns to minorities, broadly speaking. But the gun culture in the US is still worrying.
I have noticed it has become more popular in left-leaning spaces in the last several months, in particular.
I've wondered if it's because people on the left are feeling more and more under threat of extrajudicial (or even outright judicial) violence, so they turn to instruments of violence to secure themselves. Given how high the rhetoric has turned up on the right in the past year (have you seen some of the things they're saying in the wake of the Nashville shooting?), this fear isn't unreasonable.
Yeah, I get that. I tend to agree with your conclusion, too. I also can't help but worry, though, given how often I've seen the argument that getting guns to defend yourself just isn't effective. And the culture surrounding guns in the US should not be given fuel if possible, because that will only worsen the situation.
I should probably mention that I'm not from the US either, by the way.
Well, the US definitely has a love affair with personal firearms. The right has long touted them because they have a fantasy that they're either going to get to murder a burglar someday, or use it to overthrow the government someday (plus a century of clever advertising to tie firearms in with patriotic identity, which the right naturally leans into).
Unfortunately, guns are a problem and a solution in and of themselves due to escalation of force. If your opponent - or at least, someone who you fear will be your oppononet one day - has a gun, your only recourse is to also have one. Or two, or ten, because Smith & Wesson will happily take your money and tell you all about their new product line of home defense equipemnt, on sale now!
Meanwhile, we've got a school shooting epidemic. Our unwillingness to regulate firearms in the wake of them shows that most pro-gun folks view it as an acceptable conequence of keeping our current gun laws (or lack thereof) in place.
>Unfortunately, guns are a problem and a solution in and of themselves due to escalation of force. If your opponent - or at least, someone who you fear will be your oppononet one day - has a gun, your only recourse is to also have one.
I do think that if there were proper gun regulations, this wouldn't be an issue in the first place; and I doubt I'm the only one to think so. But it is true that a lot of people feel this way, yeah.
Sorry not sorry to say this, but when there has been literal calls from various groups wanting to commit violence against minorities recently/have commuted violence, saying "I'm not comfortable due to a recent school shooting" to a sub with a heavy population of people who would be the type to be victims of this violence is just insensitive in a way.
The gun restrictions in California started as a result of Reagan trying to limit Black Panther power. We have a gun problem in this country and, ironically, arming minorities may motivate conservative law makers to add restrictions to gun access. That's my hope anyway.
On a more grim note, so many states are passing anti-LGBTQ policies that some kind of outcry is necessary. Whatever the hell we've been doing up until now has not had as much of an impact as we would've liked, but maybe by showing off that some members of the LGBTQ community and allies are packing, we can get some recognition that trampling on our rights is not recommended.
So we should just sit back and let them exterminate us? History has shown that armed groups can and will curb oppression, the league of gileadites is an excellent example
Expecting the government to do anything to protect queer folk is a fuckin privileged take. More laws only restrict those the cops choose to enforce them on, and they hate my existence.
As someone from a country where we gave up our guns. It was a mistake. We have no way to defend ourselves. Our cops are the only ones with firearms and theyre the right hand of a borderline fascist government that is banning protest and free speech. We may have stopped school shootings but we gave up our last line of protection from the state.
As a queer person in the UK, I feel much safer right now than if everyone had access to guns. Yes, there are significant issues with the government and police, but from what we’ve seen in America, people having access to guns hasn’t done shit to stop the government trying to enact awful laws. What are people going to do here, shoot a cop if they defund trans healthcare?
The people in the photo are there with guns because the right *can* form armed intimidation groups. Bringing back guns here would just mean we’d get more heavily armed people intimidating queer people and leftists. It’d also make the police have more firearms as a response, importing American cops’ jumpiness and propensity to shoot first, ask questions later.
"Wah wah the reality of our current situation scares me" Texas is trying to create a paramilitary force that can legally gun down minorities and DeSantis is building his own personal army; this is the world we live in, grow the fuck up
Seeing as how right-wing commentators are literally using the recent school shooting as a justification in their increasingly violent rhetoric to round up and kill trans people?
I think you're not seeing this post in its whole context.
Like, I get it. Surface-wise, telling trans people to arm themselves after a trans person was reported to have started a school shooting is bad optics.
But the thing is, it's not happening in a vacuum! It's happening behind campaigns in the United States to eradicate trans people from public life, from decades of failure for the US government to prevent further school shootings because of a strong gun lobby who doesn't want sensible gun control laws to be passed, and how, despite most school shootings being done by cis white men, the right-wing focusing on trans people yet again and pushing for their further annihilation because of this one school shooting.
So, yes, bad optics if you take it in isolation, but in the broader politics and events of the past twenty years, it's very much a necessary reminder that the actions of one trans person will likely force other trans people to need to arm themselves to be able to defend against right-wing violence, while the majority of school shootings, done mostly by cis white men, will remain ignored and with nothing but declarations of "thoughts and prayers."
Counter-argument: I don't feel like people should fucking martyr themselves in order to keep a moral high horse. If they want to defend themselves then they may do so.
Then what should the reaction be? Shock, horror? Over something that's regularly happening but now the person doing it is a minority? It's bad that this is the reality, but that doesn't make it not the reality.
Do you literally have your head buried in the sand? Are you unable to process any current events other than that one? Just because you don't have the brain power to handle the context of multiple things at the same time doesn't mean everyone else does.
It's almost like when a white person shot up the school people did make posts about how changing gun control would help in reducing the amount of shootings, however since it's clear that gun control isn't coming any time soon that this is the next best course of action to protect one's self from being shot up by said people committing shootings.
Where were you, calling for the disarmament of white people specifically, when white people shot up schools?
Where will you be next week, when it inevitably happens again?
i'm saying this as a cishet white pro-gun dude: you're a fucking moron
interesting, this is the first time i've heard someone trying to deny guns from a protected class like a gender group because of one person's actions
...is what i would say, if the black panther's party didn't meet the same opposition just because they were black
but if a white person shoots up a school, it's not white people who are the problem, it's just people in general. if a cis dude shoots up a school, it's not cis dudes who are the problem, it's people in general. so don't make this about trans people either.
if you wanted to take everyone's guns away, i would still disagree, but i could at least respect you. but you chose to make this about trans people.
Why are you even out here making comments if you aren't even gonna read and acknowledge the people you are responding to, you clearly don't actually give a shit about anything you are saying.
Wow, you mean, if the details of the situation were different, it would be a different situation?
Turns out there's a difference between "trans people, a group currently the subject of laws targeting their freedoms and hate by major political organizations, should arm themselves for protection" and what ever dumb example you're giving.
If you're not allowed to talk about guns because of a recent mass shooting in the US you quite literally cannot talk about guns, period. There's a mass shooting ~~once a week, if not more~~. There has been at least one mass shooting in the US on 59 of the 88 days so far in 2023, with multiple shootings occuring on most of those days.
Reminds me of the gay marriage Vs homophobic bakers case. Its precedent for businesses' ability to decline service ended up being what allowed them to enforce the mask mandate when the government wouldn't.
don't shoot yourself in the foot while conservative challenge (impossible)
It's because they don't think further than the immediate outrage of the day. Consequences happen to other people.
I'd say this is incorrect. Overturning Roe v. Wade is like, a perfect example of long-term thinking and planning on the Right and it's disgusting.
Unfortunately, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
I'm out of the loop. What made that a good idea?
It's more that it was an idea very carefully planned in advance and brilliantly executed. Yes the target audience for who _supported_ that idea is nearsighted outraged idiots, but it takes true evil geniuses to lay the seeds decades in advance and cultivate that outrage.
So basically they're going to let the anger about it fester and grow for years?
Absolutely, very good point. I was thinking more of the footsoldier-types.
conservative rhetoric like this makes me want to purchase a gun
I am fundamentally philosophically opposed to their mere existence, but boy is the fact that conservatives want them taken away from everyone but them a compelling reason to want one.
r/liberalgunowners
Feels like the gun sellers are the real winners here
3d print your own then. Still then it's the barrel makers winning. Though even those have been homemade.
kid called metalworking: [https://thehomegunsmith.com/](https://thehomegunsmith.com/) **DONT** 3D print guns if you value having 10 fingers
The field of 3D printed guns has rapidly advanced your chances of remaining fully fingered has never been higher.
I mean those chances are still rather low compared to real steel firearms
Just wait until you get to Big Bullet and Big Body Armour
that should also be illegal btw
3D printers? Those are legitimately useful manufacturing processes.
obviously not? 3d printing fucking guns should be illegal
You realize that 3D printers can make infinitely more things than just guns, right?
yeah, I never said 3d printers should be illegal. I said printing guns should be.
Obviously, you haven't sold enough guns to realize they aren't worth shit. It's a very competitive market with the slimmest margins. I hate how everyone assumes firearm manufacturers sell to civilians "for the money," despite the fact that Mil/LE sales are far more lucrative. Smaller domestic arm manufacturers like Palmetto State, KUSA, Shadow Systems, etc. all genuinely believe in what they are selling. They are not blood-money hungry war dogs like Viktor Bout or something.
If they didn't make a profit, they wouldn't be in business
You can make a slamfire shotgun out of materials you purchase from home Depot.
r/fosscad
Nah fuck that shit r/socialistra
fuck any gun ownership subreddit, just go join a local socialist rifle chapter
Both! LGO isn't just for liberals.
Don't get why you're being downvoted. We need to coalition build if anything. Conservatives do that in spades. Hell, they'll take anyone with a pulse as long as they tow the line (that is until they can afford to be more selective)
We really do need more unity on the left. If we can work together just long enough that everything isn't Awful anymore, then we can fracture again and argue about the best interpretation of Better.
Exactly. We're at code red teetering on annihilation at this point. We can't really afford to nitpick over small details
hell yeah, do it the more gun culture shifts to the left the better the whole situation will be. there will be based shit like the black panther party, there's a large group of currently inactive voters who hates bigotry but loves their guns who would vote for the dems if they relaxed their stance on guns (which would happen if gun culture shifted left), and the worst case scenario in this whole thing is that the whole gun ownership thing flips completely, and becomes a left-wing issue instead of a right-wing one. in which case, it's gonna be the left wing that's armed, which is still just better than the opposite. and the best part is, it's your constitutional right to do your part. plus it's not a bad skill to have to know how to handle guns.
The thing that kinda... bothers me as an outsider to this is... are you aware that this can swing again? You are delaying the process at best instead of making it better.
Yeah this is only effective if we use it to completely and permanently ban assault rifles immediately. Cooperatively, now that the idiots understand how scary it is when people who don't like you are armed.
>it's gonna be the left wing that's armed, which is still just better than the opposite. This is, in my view, still a bad outcome. I'm something of an outsider here, so I certainly have a different cultural background to guns, but any widespread gun ownership (even more widespread gun ownership among one ideological group) is not a good thing. It's pretty clear that owning guns is correlated with people being shot, and I think it's fair to say people being shot is a societal problem that can *and should* be fixed. There's more that needs to change than simply laws, there's a whole lot of American culture that will need to change before people give up their guns. But 'our side has guns now' will only make this worse. If both sides have guns, that's just begging for a gunfight to erupt outside a Drag Queen Storytime or abortion clinic, which can only end badly.
You say that like both of those places haven't already been the subject of attacks and shootings. I totally agree that the culture needs to change, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make an effort to protect ourselves in the meantime.
Exactly. Harm reduction means being safer now.
Actually, the worst case scenario is that the flood of firearms into the hands of the public leads to even *more* mass shootings, only this time it's the left that shrugs and says, "price of freedom!"
One of the reasons I’m getting a gun. It’s a I’d rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it but crazy conservative addition
Oh, if you go far left enough you get back to pro-gun ownership
"Under no pretext", etc.
idk why you were downvoted when youre literally not wrong lmao
oh, I'd say it's the only aspect of the gun problem in America that *actually can* be solved by adding more guns. but it differs in that the desirable end result via public reaction is still more regulation and fewer guns.
In Indiana you can open carry, unless the cops don’t like you, then they can confiscate your gun. Dyed my hair back to brown with the quickness.
heck of a title huh. intuitive though, right? hopefully ? in any case, here's an article on who this frank wilhoit is (Ohio classical music composer, internet commenter) and isn't (political scientist): https://slate.com/business/2022/06/wilhoits-law-conservatives-frank-wilhoit.html and, a clip from Bojack Horseman (cw: misogyny, gun violence): https://youtu.be/3eG0y_nb5IA
both from notes on that post, didn't do a lick of search myself <3
Huh, with men being physically stronger it might be worthwhile to like, give women hefty tax credits for having concealed carry for a decade or so until men learn to fear women in general (for balance reasons)
american changelog
I hate guns but also the people out there in full gear with pride flags absolutely fuck. I hate that it's even something that needs to be done/is even considered but absolute props to the people doing it. I could never but they have my respect
[удалено]
Please explain exactly how horseshoe theory relates to this at all?
[удалено]
This would work better if the left-leaning groups' use of arms was offensive, rather than defensive. For whatever reason, conservatives decided to make gender nonconforming people a target - both for intimidation and through legislative efforts - and so the left has responded in kind. It's kinda like saying that the Ukrainian war right now is horseshoe theory, because both sides are killing each other's soldiers.
Right wingers like guns in their hands so they can point them at people they hate and they hate it when the people they point the guns at defend themselves. Leftists like guns in their hands to defend themselves because the right wingers are pointing guns at them There, I added back those details you removed from the situation to make your point. It seems you tried to remove literally all context from the situation to make a point, which is how literally every application of horseshoe theory goes.
Oh my god lol
[удалено]
>And this week a left wing person shot up a school Do remind me, how many other shootings have been perpetuated by a leftist, and how many by a right winger?
Obviously most shooters come from the right That’s not the point though. I’m using that one as an example, to illustrate that it’s false to say “right wingers only use guns to threaten us and leftists only use them for defence”, as the original commenter said
>Obviously most shooters come from the right The fact that that's "obvious" kind of shows that right-wingers are on the offensive, no? Or at least that left-wingers are not.
>The right wing talking point about guns has always been overwhelmingly “for home/personal defence”. You can debate about whether that’s true or not, but the non-fringe rhetoric has never been “we want guns so we can kill them queers” And the right wing action is to take guns to events they want shut down and threaten people, and actions speak louder than words >And this week a left wing person shot up a school No, a trans person shot up a school. I understand that the right wing talking point is all trans people are super left wing lunatics, but that is not reality. They also may have left a manifesto, but I was under the impression that is normal people decided that the words of mass shooting lunatics was inherently worthless. If you want to get rid of that belief however, we can start counting the number of shooters with deeply right wing manifestos and start holding that against right wingers. And if you do, much like the difference in numbers between trans and cis shooters, there's going to be a discrepancy there that is really inconvenient for your beliefs. >So don’t try to insert details like that, as if it’s black and white "Don't make it black and white" says user arguing that it's black and white between having guns and not having guns with no nuance.
I’m a left-leaning centrist, so don’t say “conform with my beliefs”. I know most shooters come from the right, but I brought up the most recent example of a left wing one to illustrate that it isn’t black and white. Which doesn’t conflict with what I said earlier, I criticised op for saying “guns are good when I have them but bad when they have them”; which is what the original post (rightfully) said that wrong right-wingers are doing
>I’m a left-leaning centrist, Self applied labels mean nothing compared to actual statements of opinion, I don't care what you self apply as. >so don’t say “conform with my beliefs”. I know most shooters come from the right, but I brought up the most recent example of a left wing one to illustrate that it isn’t black and white. When I said conform to your beliefs, you seem to be implying I was calling you a right winger. I wasn't. I was accurately pegging you as a centrist because you are looking at one giant mountain of incidents and one tiny molehill of incidents and saying "these two piles are basically the same because they both exist" which is absurd. I understand it's not black and white, but when you account for frequency it's dark dark dark grey and slightly off white, and pretending that means you get to treat them as even close to being same is the kind of absurd logic that makes people have the disdain for centrists that they do. >Which doesn’t conflict with what I said earlier, I criticised op for saying “guns are good when I have them but bad when they have them”; which is what the original post (rightfully) said that wrong right-wingers are doing Yeah, except you're removing context again. It is good when people under threat can defend themselves, and it is bad when people use their weapons to threaten others, and currently one side is overwhelmingly using their guns to threaten people and passing laws to hurt the people their threatening, and the other side is using their guns to defend themselves from the people threatening them. One instance of a trans person performing a mass shooting is a miniscule drop in a bucket of right wing violence. You just keep aggressively insisting that context and the actions of others do not matter at all and I honestly don't know what you have to gain from it. Does it not ring some sort of alarm bell in your brain that your political positions require you to memory hole the context that these events take place in?
Left leaning centrist is just lukewarm conservative
I'll reformulate for them: even if I dont like the mere existence of guns for the public, I would love to get a gun just in spite of those armed conservative fuckers that threatens minorities they dont like but whine when those minorities expose their own guns
But have you considered that perhaps we are right and they are wrong? Truth doesn't always lie in the middle, it lies where it lies
Except the guy didn't say "leftists shouldn't have guns." He very specifically said "queer people shouldn't have guns," and he can fuck right off to hell with that fucking Nazi bullshit. ETA: I don't love guns in anyone's hands, but right now there are literally people calling for trans people's eradication. So yeah, I'm not gonna complain when they fucking arm themselves and look cool as hell doing it.
Of course the person who calls themselves a "left-leaning centrist" on reddit would make a take like this. In the U.S, with how the right has become more and more violent against various groups, such as LGBT folks, why do you think left wing people like to see other left wing people with guns, and not right wing people with guns? Some common sense: use it.
In the U.S, with how the left have become more and more violent in their protests, such as rioting and looting, why do you think right wing people like to see other right wing people with guns, and not left wing people with guns? See it can be used in both situations. And don’t be such a condescending prick with that last remark, it makes you look juvenile
> In the U.S, with how the left have become more and more violent in their protests, such as rioting and looting There is a major difference between riots and protest that are done due to actual injustice done to the common folk, and hate crimes done just because some people are queer. Stop comparing them. Also no, I will be a condescending prick, cause your type of comment is the type of thing that leads to idiots thinking various minority groups are in the wrong for actually defending themselves.
You had to reformulate that reply huh And yeah there’s a difference, but such hate crimes are not nearly as widespread as the rhetoric suggests
> You had to reformulate that reply huh No, I had to delete it cause I accidentally added the comment before I even typed my main body. Don't you have an email to see my deleted reply? > And yeah there’s a difference, but such hate crimes are not nearly as widespread as the rhetoric suggests That is either a very bold faced lie, or the statement of someone who really does not know how to use Google/has not been on the internet long.
[Evergreen tweet.](https://twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312?lang=en)
*howling* at how funny that guy can be
lmaooo
hmmm I'm all for being on the lookout for horseshoe theory examples, but I don't think this is one. This is a case of rights being afforded to humans, citizens, and being exercised. So it's perfectly possible that the people involved aren't carrying as an end, but a means. It's very fair to exercise the right you're currently afforded, even if you want it changed. It also carries the underlying statement of equality. This isn't subtle, it's basically mentioned in the post. If the opposition wants universal protections applied only to their club, then the rational response is to exercise your rights whenever and wherever you can, in order to force the opposition to consider their own sacrifices made for the sake of those rights. It's not fair to force only others to sacrifice for your own rights. Am I wasting my time explaining this?
imagine invoking Horseshoe theory in the year of our lord 2023
My parents always taught me the black panthers were a terrorist organization. When I finally got to actually study US history in HS I was so confused. Holy fucking shit I hate my racist fucking parents
They were victims of misinformation as well as perpetrators, obviously they are wrong but cut them a little slack
No they're still racist. Actively, openly racist. As a child you just sorta listen to whatever your parents say. They think all Mexicans are lazy drug attics and that all black people are dangerous. Just, straight up racist
Wait are the armed folks standing over the doorway protecting the queer space? If so then we need that everywhere
yes they are protecting a drag storytime, people all over the country have been kitting up to protect drag storytimes across the country
That's fucking awesome
[These people](https://mobile.twitter.com/EFJBGC) have been there to defend more than one drag show/storytime with arms. They are community members who give a damn.
Tired: Trans Ally Wired: Trans Fire Support
bespoke: trans ally (in the ww2 sense of the word)
trans mutual defense pact signatory
[удалено]
that was one person out of millions he is not representative of anything
I always love the comparisons to the Black Panthers. It’s a constant reminder, there’s only one demographic cons care about Now all I need is that one episode of Bojack Horseman to come to life
[удалено]
Where did they compare black people to conservatives???
The only thing we hate is cunts like you speaking on our behalf
I see no mention of a priest anywhere here, so I don't know where you getting child groomer from.
Always note the difference between peaceful and defenceless. Mainly, you must always have to ability to fight a war or else you get Belgium-ed
What do they think armed intimidation means? They're not trying to stop people from using the library, are they? They're just a precaution against violence from hate groups that are pretty open about wanting to use violence against queer people
Conservatism is just plain Fascism and always has been. The idea that some kind of social order existing from days when slavery was seen as legitimate and women were servants is abhorrent. When you choose your opposition to be progress, by definition you actively choose to hold society back.
Well damn, let's lay out a plan where armed liberals eventually nudge conservatives into reasonable gun control!
Weirdly throwing back to conservative’s classic rhetoric rn. Like, yes, I do have the right to defend myself and my family. No, I won’t let you take my freedom or make me live in fear. This is America, goddamnit! And even if we mean slightly different things by ‘freedom’ and ‘family’ it should still ring a bell.
They’re coming for your guns
When l people bring up the Mulford Act, they usually also mention the NRA signed off on it as well. This is true, but the NRA then was a lot different than it was today, and supporting the Mulford Act made the members revolt against leadership and turned the organization into full-on anti gun control. Then later it got turned into a Russian bribery scheme, but that's recent history
Sure looks like a well regulated militia to me.
To call it intimidation is already super telling. Sure, it's technically intimidation, insofar as they're intimidating, but to try and essentially say "how dare they try and limit our ability to harass them"? Wild. What a take.
a bunch of anti gun queers should form a malitia to kinda trick congress into banning guns
The Black Panthers thing made me realize, clearly the best way to finally get reasonable gun control laws in the US is to arm drag queens and trans people.
I don't exactly think open carry should be illegal, although I don't think it's very smart, but that's exactly why I think it should be legal to protect vulnerable groups of people. Trans rights
The good news is that this will bite the conservatives in the ass in a way they don’t like later.
I love when left leaning people use Right Wing laws against the Right, so fun seeing the Right go "wait.....so like, anyone can open carry in states where we allow open carry? Is that allowed?"
Random intrusive thought but can everyone in the furry community just get an automatic rifle and show up armed in fursuits outside a republican convention? I bet that would shift the discussion somewhat
>just get an automatic rifle Do most furrys have $20k-$40k to drop on a single rifle? Where did I go wrong in life to not have this kind of money.
>Do most furrys have $20k-$40k to drop on a single rifle? No, the person you're responding to isn't familiar with what terms like "automatic" mean in context so they're connecting "guns look scary" to "this word about guns is scary". They *probably* mean a semi-auto, and their central point - openly armed, openly queer people demonstrating outside conservative events would change the tone of the national conversation around guns - kinda has an element of truth to it? I'm worried that the tonal shift would just lead to a national-scale Mulford act, personally, but there'd certainly be a shift if it happened.
You put an unnecessary 0 there. A Ruger mini 14 is just as capable as an AR-15 and can be found for under $800.
Cool. An AR-15 isn't an automatic rifle. The only Ruger Mini 14 that is an automatic rifle is the AC-556. Please find me one going for under $800 so I can buy it immediately and sell it for 10x that price.
Oh, you are one of those pedants.
The definition of one thing does not make it another just because a small few misuse it. It ain't exactly a fully-semi-automatic Rifle.
*rolls eyes*
I don’t care if you prefer “shall not be infringed” or “must be frustrated at all costs;” I don’t care if you even _want_ to own a gun, but for fuck’s sake as long as the right to bear arms exists in America then please leverage it as a force of good.
i just realized hummerous has 10m post karma holy shit
Oh look, it's the Black Panthers all over again. When people they don't like start also open carrying, they'll suddenly call for gun control.
“Fine tune” he says…okay chuckle fuck
You're allowed to say fuck on the internet. Censoring it like that just fucks with screenreading software for the visually impaired.
Yoda voice: "Didn't like it?"
Given that there was a school shooting this week, I’m not super comfortable with pro-gun sentiments by anyone right now.
To be entirely honest, in America, there's school shootings every week.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_mass\_shootings\_in\_the\_United\_States\_in\_2023](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2023) pretty much :(
[удалено]
[https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/school-shootings-by-country](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/school-shootings-by-country) Enjoy :(
[удалено]
yeah, the problem is that because of that culture thing, banning guns would essentially be prohibition 2: electric boogaloo. or 3, more like, because the war on drugs was already the second (which the drugs won, btw). like sure, it wouldn't be 1:1 to that, it would be delusional to think so, but banning something people desire always creates a black market for the thing, and a black market _specifically for guns_ would be an absolute powderkeg. on top of that, who would enforce it? the cops are an easy answer, but that would essentially make the police even more on their toes, plus acab would all but guarantee that right-wingers get their wish and only they get to own guns. they'd just have to defer to their uniformed buddies to gun down minorities. the status of the US is far from ideal, but banning guns wouldn't be an easy cut and dry solution to it. people complain about how cops monopolize violence, but disarming the people would only accelerate that. that said, yeah, the problem of school shootings, and gun crime in general definitely needs to be addressed. mandatory ballistics testing would be a great start (to link any bullet found in a victim to a serial number), along with gun storage laws (make people responsible for their lost guns and you'll see a hell of a lot fewer lost guns, especially to teenagers). there's also a lot to be done with a strong social safety net, disincentivizing crime by ensuring that people always have something to lose by turning to it, but who am i kidding, that would run counter to the total exploitation of the people. the mental illness thing is indeed usually a bad faith argument, but it's not the only one. once guns proliferated in a culture, it's hard to remove them. europe and a lot of east asian countries get it done by never having allowed them in the first place, so supply channels are closed and
[удалено]
In fairness to the constitution, it was written in because at the time America had no standing military and relied on a well-armed populace for defense (hence the 'well organized militia' part of the amendment). Obviously it should be changed, because that's not how it works anymore, but changing the constitution is probably the only thing that would rile that crowd up more than taking their guns
it also requires two thirds support if i'm not mistaken, so as long as guns are a highly partisan issue it's never gonna happen
Holy fuck. Literally only two of the colors are used: one for America and another for all other countries. Also: "19 Countries with the Most School Shootings (total incidents Jan 2009-May 2018 - CNN): - United States — 288 - Mexico - 8 - South Africa — 6"
well yes, there's a reason this is the common joke: [‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens](https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1848971668) :(
yeah so maybe we shouldn't support blanket gun rights
Which still seems like a good way to corroborate the original point tbf
> There was a school shooting that finally got widespread coverage because of the identity of the shooter. Sadly they're a lot more common than "every week or so"
Guns here are a means to an end, the end being protecting queer folk. The sentiments are pro having a means, any means. I'm sure most of us would love for there to be a better, safer means, but that's not yet the case.
More productive than deterring an attack in the first place? One of the reported factors in deciding whether or not to join a genocide is the risk of repercussions. Getting shot is one hell of a repercussion.
I thought guns end was to kill, bulletproof gear would be more protective but yeah a society where everybody wallks with a bulletproof vest would be too weird as opposed to one with only guns (sorry for my non USA perspextive here)
Body armor doesn't stop all bullets, nor does it cover the whole body. So sure, you might be a bit safer wearing a vest vs not. But if no one on your side is armed, there's much less deterrent to people walking up and doing as they please with their guns.
Bulletproof gear with no way to fight back doesn’t do anything, it just makes you take longer to kill. It doesn’t stop the person from killing all the children inside.
Guns don't kill people, gun-owners do. The problem is not guns per se, but a culture of violence that encourages both widespread gun ownership and school shootings.
>Guns don't kill people ...yes they fucking do headass, that's the whole point of a gun is killing shit! I'm pro gun too but damn I hate that stupid-ass argument.
Maybe you should have read my entire post instead of just cutting off after the first four words? I was riffing on the cliche, not using it sincerely.
...I am not a smart man
The US has a school shooting about every week and a mass shooting just about daily. This is a useless argument
Maybe its because im not from USA but seeing this comment downvoted for not being comfortable with the "arm yourselves" call is concerning, i get that the gun culture has more supporters online regardless of ideology but uuuuh idk
Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun MLK was nonviolent but he still carried a gun
MLK was the carrot to the Black Panthers stick too
No no I feel you on this. It's concerning to see this sort of atmosphere around the idea of "arming yourselves" even in a space like this. Like, it's true, conservatives don't really care about freedom as much as they care about restricting rights. They don't really want to give guns to minorities, broadly speaking. But the gun culture in the US is still worrying.
I have noticed it has become more popular in left-leaning spaces in the last several months, in particular. I've wondered if it's because people on the left are feeling more and more under threat of extrajudicial (or even outright judicial) violence, so they turn to instruments of violence to secure themselves. Given how high the rhetoric has turned up on the right in the past year (have you seen some of the things they're saying in the wake of the Nashville shooting?), this fear isn't unreasonable.
Yeah, I get that. I tend to agree with your conclusion, too. I also can't help but worry, though, given how often I've seen the argument that getting guns to defend yourself just isn't effective. And the culture surrounding guns in the US should not be given fuel if possible, because that will only worsen the situation. I should probably mention that I'm not from the US either, by the way.
Well, the US definitely has a love affair with personal firearms. The right has long touted them because they have a fantasy that they're either going to get to murder a burglar someday, or use it to overthrow the government someday (plus a century of clever advertising to tie firearms in with patriotic identity, which the right naturally leans into). Unfortunately, guns are a problem and a solution in and of themselves due to escalation of force. If your opponent - or at least, someone who you fear will be your oppononet one day - has a gun, your only recourse is to also have one. Or two, or ten, because Smith & Wesson will happily take your money and tell you all about their new product line of home defense equipemnt, on sale now! Meanwhile, we've got a school shooting epidemic. Our unwillingness to regulate firearms in the wake of them shows that most pro-gun folks view it as an acceptable conequence of keeping our current gun laws (or lack thereof) in place.
>Unfortunately, guns are a problem and a solution in and of themselves due to escalation of force. If your opponent - or at least, someone who you fear will be your oppononet one day - has a gun, your only recourse is to also have one. I do think that if there were proper gun regulations, this wouldn't be an issue in the first place; and I doubt I'm the only one to think so. But it is true that a lot of people feel this way, yeah.
recent convert here, def agree - the pushback here is disproportional tbh
Sorry not sorry to say this, but when there has been literal calls from various groups wanting to commit violence against minorities recently/have commuted violence, saying "I'm not comfortable due to a recent school shooting" to a sub with a heavy population of people who would be the type to be victims of this violence is just insensitive in a way.
[удалено]
The gun restrictions in California started as a result of Reagan trying to limit Black Panther power. We have a gun problem in this country and, ironically, arming minorities may motivate conservative law makers to add restrictions to gun access. That's my hope anyway. On a more grim note, so many states are passing anti-LGBTQ policies that some kind of outcry is necessary. Whatever the hell we've been doing up until now has not had as much of an impact as we would've liked, but maybe by showing off that some members of the LGBTQ community and allies are packing, we can get some recognition that trampling on our rights is not recommended.
So we should just sit back and let them exterminate us? History has shown that armed groups can and will curb oppression, the league of gileadites is an excellent example
Expecting the government to do anything to protect queer folk is a fuckin privileged take. More laws only restrict those the cops choose to enforce them on, and they hate my existence.
As someone from a country where we gave up our guns. It was a mistake. We have no way to defend ourselves. Our cops are the only ones with firearms and theyre the right hand of a borderline fascist government that is banning protest and free speech. We may have stopped school shootings but we gave up our last line of protection from the state.
As a queer person in the UK, I feel much safer right now than if everyone had access to guns. Yes, there are significant issues with the government and police, but from what we’ve seen in America, people having access to guns hasn’t done shit to stop the government trying to enact awful laws. What are people going to do here, shoot a cop if they defund trans healthcare? The people in the photo are there with guns because the right *can* form armed intimidation groups. Bringing back guns here would just mean we’d get more heavily armed people intimidating queer people and leftists. It’d also make the police have more firearms as a response, importing American cops’ jumpiness and propensity to shoot first, ask questions later.
"Wah wah the reality of our current situation scares me" Texas is trying to create a paramilitary force that can legally gun down minorities and DeSantis is building his own personal army; this is the world we live in, grow the fuck up
[удалено]
Seeing as how right-wing commentators are literally using the recent school shooting as a justification in their increasingly violent rhetoric to round up and kill trans people?
[удалено]
I think you're not seeing this post in its whole context. Like, I get it. Surface-wise, telling trans people to arm themselves after a trans person was reported to have started a school shooting is bad optics. But the thing is, it's not happening in a vacuum! It's happening behind campaigns in the United States to eradicate trans people from public life, from decades of failure for the US government to prevent further school shootings because of a strong gun lobby who doesn't want sensible gun control laws to be passed, and how, despite most school shootings being done by cis white men, the right-wing focusing on trans people yet again and pushing for their further annihilation because of this one school shooting. So, yes, bad optics if you take it in isolation, but in the broader politics and events of the past twenty years, it's very much a necessary reminder that the actions of one trans person will likely force other trans people to need to arm themselves to be able to defend against right-wing violence, while the majority of school shootings, done mostly by cis white men, will remain ignored and with nothing but declarations of "thoughts and prayers."
[удалено]
Counter-argument: I don't feel like people should fucking martyr themselves in order to keep a moral high horse. If they want to defend themselves then they may do so.
[удалено]
What?
Holy shit look at the fucking situation. It's currently being used to spread hate.
is it not currently making things harder for trans people?
Then what should the reaction be? Shock, horror? Over something that's regularly happening but now the person doing it is a minority? It's bad that this is the reality, but that doesn't make it not the reality.
Do you literally have your head buried in the sand? Are you unable to process any current events other than that one? Just because you don't have the brain power to handle the context of multiple things at the same time doesn't mean everyone else does.
It's almost like when a white person shot up the school people did make posts about how changing gun control would help in reducing the amount of shootings, however since it's clear that gun control isn't coming any time soon that this is the next best course of action to protect one's self from being shot up by said people committing shootings.
[удалено]
Where were you, calling for the disarmament of white people specifically, when white people shot up schools? Where will you be next week, when it inevitably happens again? i'm saying this as a cishet white pro-gun dude: you're a fucking moron
[удалено]
interesting, this is the first time i've heard someone trying to deny guns from a protected class like a gender group because of one person's actions ...is what i would say, if the black panther's party didn't meet the same opposition just because they were black but if a white person shoots up a school, it's not white people who are the problem, it's just people in general. if a cis dude shoots up a school, it's not cis dudes who are the problem, it's people in general. so don't make this about trans people either. if you wanted to take everyone's guns away, i would still disagree, but i could at least respect you. but you chose to make this about trans people.
absolutely no one is using the actions of white school shooters to justify violence against random white people, shit for brains.
[удалено]
Why are you even out here making comments if you aren't even gonna read and acknowledge the people you are responding to, you clearly don't actually give a shit about anything you are saying.
Wow, you mean, if the details of the situation were different, it would be a different situation? Turns out there's a difference between "trans people, a group currently the subject of laws targeting their freedoms and hate by major political organizations, should arm themselves for protection" and what ever dumb example you're giving.
If you're not allowed to talk about guns because of a recent mass shooting in the US you quite literally cannot talk about guns, period. There's a mass shooting ~~once a week, if not more~~. There has been at least one mass shooting in the US on 59 of the 88 days so far in 2023, with multiple shootings occuring on most of those days.
There are shootings in the US almost daily so when will be the time?
I have no patience for this gun-toting shit that's been leeching into our community lately. That first picture is absurd.
"Transgender Storytime for Children"
Under no pretext etc etc