cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/22334414
Summary
Two transgender women, Dahlia and Jess, were attacked at a Minneapolis rail station, with onlookers cheering their assailants instead of helping.
After confronting a man yelling transphobic slurs, the situation escalated into a violent assault involving four or five others, leaving both women unconscious.
Advocates attribute the rise in anti-trans violence to emboldened transphobia fueled by misinformation and political rhetoric, including Donald Trump’s anti-LGBTQ+ policies.
The local trans community is responding with solidarity rallies, self-defense classes, and firearm training to prepare for a potential increase in attacks.
Police are investigating, but no arrests have been made.
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.
lol, you think only the victim will have a firearm?
you don’t think that if the victim pulls, the fuckheads will keep their firearms stowed and just accept it?
they aren’t wrong: gun violence is the result of too many guns in too many hands.
when these victims begin to light up the assholes, and a firefight erupts, will it be better that innocent bystanders are dead for freedumb?
why should it be the victim’s responsibility to engage in a firefight just to exist in society?