The
group, which advocates for gay Americans to carry firearms, just won a
major victory on Tuesday: a federal judge in Washington halted
enforcement of a portion of the city’s strict gun law, ordering
Washington DC police to stop requiring residents to demonstrate they
have “a good reason to fear injury,” which he ruled places “an
unconstitutional burden” on citizens’ right to bear arms.
The Group, which nobody seems to spend five minutes looking for on google, is named the Pink Pistols. Remember the goddamn name.
Good, I don’t care who you sleep with or what color you are we all need to fight for and exercise our Constitutional rights. Let’s also put an end to the anti-gun crowds “only white guys” like guns myth.
I’ve heard a lot about Pink Pistols. They’re doing good stuff
Do lgbt people in the US who own guns even have a lower chance of being killed/injured by hate crimes when you adjust for wealth, age, location, gender, etc. though? I don’t think the people who are in the most danger (young teenagers who ran away from their home or were disowned by their parents, sex workers in violent areas, extremely poor people) would have as much access to weapons (or other kinds of safety/self defense tools and training, for that matter) as everyone else. So if a “guns make you safer” effect actually appears, it might just be cofounding.
I would research this myself if I weren’t too sick and tired to put mental effort into anything right now. Maybe, little followers, if you have been very good, you will get heated-up leftover effortposts and chocolate milk for breakfast!
#armthegaysiffitsactuallyhelpingthem
Nobody has a clue, all the data is confounded to hell, but it makes a staggering amount of sense. Even if one were to assume that increases in concealed carry increase gun crime in general, I’d be highly surprised if a drastic specific increase in concealed carry by vulnerable populations wouldn’t reduce the risk of hate crimes, effectively turning it into a PD/tragedy-of-the-commons type situation. (And there would be a predictable increase in gun suicides because being lgbtq tends to suck for many people, thus offsetting the effect a bit.)
Probably the best test of this would be to choose some cities in random, provide firearms, training and concealed carry permits to as many eligible lgbtq volunteers as possible (especially TWoC) and publicize the fuck out of it. Considering the opportunistic and non-gainful nature of bashing attacks, I don’t think the absolute number of gun carriers would need to be that great as long as prospective bashers had a reasonable doubt that their victims might be armed. (My prediction would be that such a program would have a statistically significant effect compared to controls, mostly from the PR side of trying to make as many haters as possible aware that some lgbtq people are packing and thus none are safe to mess with. Especially if the people who get guns were selected to be externally indistinguishable from the general lgbtq population but with significantly lower suicidality, impulsivity etc. to reduce the harms increased gun ownership would cause.)
Encouraging a population to carry guns for the purpose of shooting people is *really* *fucking* *dangerous*. I would hazard a guess it’s part of that cultural difference that makes the US’s gun violence four times Canada per gun ownership capita. (Hum, does that rhetoric exist in Canada, fact check?)
How many gay people see cishets as the oppressors? As the Enemy? Who aren’t uncomfortable with throwing around notions of killing them. Not a lot, maybe. Those who do are going to be more afraid, more likely to want to defend themselves, and more likely to stop thinking of their oppressors as people and start seeing them as monsters. Then it’s simply a matter of getting over the fear of retribution and you have a gay shooting up a church or something. Introducing more weapons and training to kill into a world where people see categories of people as monsters is asking for trouble.
There are many countries in Europe where gun laws are as relaxed, or more, as in many states. In eg. the Czech Republic concealed carry for self-defense purposes is allowed for any gun owners, and a gun license is on “shall issue” basis, yet we don’t see a massive amount of gun violence (rate of gun homicides is 1/20th of that in the US). Similarly, there are countries with very strict gun laws, yet they don’t correspond to a comparable absence of lethal violence (Finland bans carrying by civilians and handgun permits are very hard to obtain nowadays, yet the gun homicide rate is twice that of the CR; the UK has higher rates of overall homicide than CR, and relatively close to that of Serbia or Bosnia despite the latter having very liberal gun laws and the UK having incredibly strict ones).
Or as the gun owners themselves say: “we carriers are some of the most well-behaved citizens because we know our permit will be taken away if we get drunk, act irresponsibly, get in brawls, etc.” and I basically trust them. Most gun owners are as reasonable and responsible people as anyone else, if not more (on average) because a properly functioning permit system will filter away the worst cases.
It doesn’t seem to be that much about guns, but instead very much about culture. It’s likely that the gun culture in the US is especially dysfunctional, but that’s an argument for trying to change the culture, because nobody will ever be able to take those guns away (and I’d consider it an undesirable outcome anyway; my ideal society would have a strong positive culture that keeps things in check so that most people could basically be trusted with their choice to obtain firearms if they want). And when one takes that into account, focusing on skills and safety, responsible usage, and gun laws that are reasonable (permits not excessively hard to obtain, and focus on competence in safe handling instead of excessive barriers and fees) would probably be the best option forward.