90
Crowd cheered as two transgender women were attacked in Minneapolis, advocates say
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024
90 points (95.9% liked)
Minneapolis - St. Paul Metro
564 readers
77 users here now
About
A community for leftists and progressives within the Minneapolis - St. Paul Metro Area, including all suburbs and exurbs.
Community banner courtesy of @maven@lemmy.zip ❤️
Guidelines
-
Be nice
-
Comment substantively
-
Probably some other stuff
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Non-fatally shooting one or two among a group of men that's got you down on the ground attacking you is not "rampant gun violence."
The problem is not hypothetical, we're discussing it as it just happened.
It's important to de-escalate, you're right. Owning a firearm comes with many responsibilities that you must uphold as a gun owner, and responsibly weilding the firearm (including and especially not using it as an excuse to threaten whomever you may) is one of them. But in this situation, it seems as though the men struck first, last, and hardest.
You're right also, that they could have just ignored it. And, without video, there's no way to tell how intense the initial conversation was. But do you think asking to not be called slurs on the train deserves a response in physical force? And do you think being beaten by a group with a 2:1 ratio on your own does not deserve a response in physical force?
I'm not suggesting "shooting up a train station," I'm suggesting using a firearm to deter a group of men that are beating you.
There are more guns than people in the US. Gun violence there is rampant, more children are killed by guns than by cars. The cause of the gun violence IS the gun ownership. It’s the idea that when you have a problem - even a physical one - that the solution is a gun. That idea is unique amongst war-torn countries and the US. So no, shooting up a train station isn’t rampant gun violence. But the idea that you ought to is.
But that's not the idea: self defense is not the same as a mass shooting, and you refusing to differentiate that gives me the vibe you aren't arguing in good faith.
The UK doesn't have gun violence, they have knife violence. So are you going to tell someone not to carry a knife for self defense because it's a potentially deadly weapon?
Sometimes it is, bud, welcome to the real world. If you're being attacked, especially if you're outnumbered, your argument is basically "you should have talked your way out if it, or just taken the assault, rather than use a tool you may legally be allowed to use to protect yourself." Do you ask rape victims what they were wearing before the assault too?
They clearly couldn't rely on bystanders to intervene, like people attempted to for George Floyd, and the victims were outnumbered and clearly overpowered. Had one of them been carrying a firearm, the assholes who just assaulted two people for existing may have been deterred.