posted to Socialist RA
Commenters: “but why are you posting about firearms though???”
“Get bent” is kinda weak though lol.
I vote for “trans rights or else” for the white text
I take this as a metaphorical statement, not literally advocating gun violence.
I agree wholeheartedly that, speaking in metaphorical terms, it’s useless placing flowers in the rifles that are ready to fire again. There comes a point where these absolute bigoted wankstains need to be called out, and have a fire started under the pedestals upon which they stand so damn proudly.
Given the context of what community this is on, I kinda think it speaks to the right to self defense and the right to exist in a social climate where rabid, violent, right wing extremists want to eliminate trans people in every way possible.
And, just to throw this out there, it is not morally wrong to defend yourself against lethal threat or threat of significant bodily harm. It is also legal in every state in the US (check state and local laws though, as there are nuances).
I’m confused is this saying that LGBTQ people should arm themselves to protect themselves or is it saying that guns have the right to exist?
But “get bent” refers to sodomy, in a typically derogatory context. It’s like saying “this sucks dick” to mean, “this is bad” (read: people who suck dick = less than). It’s the same as people saying, “this is gay” to mean bad. So really, we should be phasing out the phrase “get bent.”
This reads to me as “I am not debating my right to exist [as a trans person or trans supporter]. I’m ready to defend myself and my allies if need be, to whatever extent is necessary. Back off or else.”
So it comes across as a call to be ready to fight back, which would mean that if you’re comfortable owning a gun or another weapon (or more comfortable owning a gun than not within the context of the current sociopolitical climate), it would be wise to have one on hand. I don’t take it as a literal call to arms, it’s more like an alternate, more direct/specific take on the Gadsden Flag. Not overtly hostile, but a clear warning that aggression will be responded to with an appropriate measure of self defense.
Just gonna put this right here:
Not denying that it can be dangerous to own a gun but when violent fascists have gained power in a country with extremely lax gun laws then I think I’ll take my chances of owning one.
I haven’t finished reading the study yet, but some thoughts so far:
- Those that believe they’re at greater risk of being shot (for example, if they live in a high-crime area) are more likely to want to possess a gun.
- Those that had a gun but had “no chance to resist” (basically, they were uninvolved and caught a stray bullet) had a 4.46x higher chance of being shot than those not in possession. This seems to indicate that the increase is almost entirely correlation, and not caused by possession. Stray bullets can’t tell if someone is in possession of a gun or not.
- Those that had a gun and had “at least some chance to resist” only had a 5.45x higher chance of being shot than those not in possession. This is only 1.22x higher than the “no chance to resist” group. Pretty impressive, considering that this includes scenarios where the attacker got the drop on the victim, as well as “mutual combat situations precipitated by a prior argument” where the fight might have been avoidable through deescalation.
- As far as I can tell so far, the control group isn’t anything like “unarmed people that got robbed”, it’s random people in Philadelphia that were interviewed about what they were doing at the time their counterpart in the experimental group got shot.
- Engaging in a gunfight with an assailant and being shot may be preferable to cooperating in the hopes of being left unharmed, depending on the situation. Particularly when the assailant is a violent bigot that wants to kill (and maybe torture) you anyway.