HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Pink Pistols: LGBT Gun Ow...

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 03:22 PM

 

Pink Pistols: LGBT Gun Owners Unite in Arming Gay Community

This, of course, is a large part of the Pink Pistol's mission: to get LGBT people more comfortable with firearms and encourage them to fight hate crimes with bullets or at least the threat of them. A small, loosely organized group of a few dozen chapters scattered across the states and Canada, including Toronto, San Francisco and Charleston, South Carolina, the Pink Pistols' membership has climbed from around 1,500 earlier this month to about 6,500 since the June day Omar Mateen attacked the Pulse nightclub, turning the dance floor into a killing field and crashing together two culture war battlegrounds that rarely converge: gays and guns. While the majority of LGBT people seem to be calling for more regulation, Pink Pistols and their allies are hunkering down and taking up arms, banding together under the group's motto, a confrontational warning to potential gay-bashers: "Pick on someone your own caliber."

The Pink Pistols formed around 2000, after gay journalist Jonathan Rauch still outraged by Matthew Shepard's 1998 murder, and knowing gay men who stopped attacks with guns published an article on Salon. "[Gays] should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry," he wrote, noting that they should do it in a way to garner as much publicity as possible. And, as an added bonus to self-protection, Pink Pistols could erode tenacious stereotypes, challenging the image of cringing weakness, especially for those who internalized it. "Pink pistols," he wrote, "would do far more for the self-esteem of the next generation of gay men and women than any number of hate-crime laws or anti-discrimination statutes."


This is from a rather lengthy article at Rolling Stone - http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/pink-pistols-lgbt-gun-owners-unite-in-arming-gay-community-20160628#ixzz4Czvgtm3h

23 replies, 2134 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 23 replies Author Time Post
Reply Pink Pistols: LGBT Gun Owners Unite in Arming Gay Community (Original post)
TeddyR Jun 2016 OP
guillaumeb Jun 2016 #1
Puha Ekapi Jun 2016 #5
guillaumeb Jun 2016 #11
gejohnston Jun 2016 #14
Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #10
guillaumeb Jun 2016 #12
gejohnston Jun 2016 #15
guillaumeb Jun 2016 #17
gejohnston Jun 2016 #19
beevul Jun 2016 #23
Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #18
Just reading posts Jun 2016 #2
Laffy Kat Jun 2016 #3
gejohnston Jun 2016 #4
sanatanadharma Jun 2016 #6
TeddyR Jun 2016 #7
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #9
Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #16
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #8
Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #13
Puha Ekapi Jun 2016 #20
mwrguy Jun 2016 #21
DonP Jun 2016 #22

Response to TeddyR (Original post)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 03:29 PM

1. Anything to sell more weapons?

Thus expanding the number of households with guns and expanding the pool of innocent victims?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 05:01 PM

5. Except that that firearms deaths are...

... HALF of what they were 20 years ago. But keep pounding the bullshit meme that liberal RKBA creates more deaths. We know it's bullshit, and you probably do to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Puha Ekapi (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 01:41 PM

11. And gun homicides are higher in households that own guns.

And if the likelihood of dying by gun is one half of what it was 20 years ago, why are the same minority of people buying more guns?

That sounds like protecting against a statistically non-existent threat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #11)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 01:44 PM

14. that is based on a study that failed peer review

and has been discredited. See Author Kellermann. There is zero evidence to support the claim. It if were true, Wyoming's and Iceland's murder rates would be astronomical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #1)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 01:35 PM

10. I leave the decision of arming for SD up to responsible adults. You agree?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #10)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 01:42 PM

12. No. Ths is not a frontier state with no infrastructure.

What, in your view, is the function of the military, the police, and the state national guards?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #12)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 01:47 PM

15. those infrastructures existed in the "old west"

the military is the strong arm of foreign policy, and the police is to enforce the law and investigate crimes. They also maintain order. Their job is not to protect you personally. They do not show up in the nick of time to protect you, and they have no legal obligation to do so even if it were possible.
Also, most rapid mass murderers are stopped by citizens who are present, not police.
http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/new-rapid-mass-murder-research-from-ron-borsch

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #15)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 01:56 PM

17. So all of these gun massacres that keep occurring

have been stopped by the mythical "good person with a gun"? Interesting because I have read nothing about that.

How many people have you personally protected from harm, as opposed to the police that you dismiss?

And please do not tell me about "Joe the farmer who lives 300 miles from town and the police would take 6 hours to get to his house" because that type of example is statistically nearly non-existent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #17)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 02:38 PM

19. you didn't read what the research said

since it said the good guy there is likely unarmed.
and I didn't dismiss the police, it is a simple fact that the police show up in the middle or end of the event. They will tell you that themsleves. The writer is in the business of training police in tactics. His non ideological observations based on objective research has infinitely more weight than Wayne LaPeirre's, Piers Morgan's, or your ideological and uninformed opinions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #17)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 04:24 PM

23. A poor argument.

 

And please do not tell me about "Joe the farmer who lives 300 miles from town and the police would take 6 hours to get to his house" because that type of example is statistically nearly non-existent.


A poor argument. America isn't just 1 big metro area. Many millions of people live rurally in areas that become inaccessible after an hours rain, or in rural counties with no budget for the presence of law enforcement in such quantities and in such a dispersal pattern, that the police are only 5 minutes away. I suggest You spend some time travelling and actually getting to know America before the next time you decide to talk authoritatively about it.

Mass shootings are statistically nearly non-existent, far more so than the rural living individual who may be an hour or more from law enforcement at times.

This does not seem to have been any impediment for any anti-gun posters "telling" the rest of us (who didn't do it) what for...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #12)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 02:01 PM

18. In order:. To protect us from foreign invaders; to gather evidence of crime and apprehend suspects;

 

To augment U.S. military and to be "first responders" to civil insurrection or invaders.

None of these are charged with personal self-defense from an attacker (individual or en masse) in our day-to-day lives, nor can they, except in rare instances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeddyR (Original post)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 03:32 PM

2. Good for them.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeddyR (Original post)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 04:10 PM

3. I'm personally for strict gun control but I have no problem with this.

It's just sad that it has come to the LGBTQ having to arm themselves to feel safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laffy Kat (Reply #3)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 04:50 PM

4. it isn't so much them having to now more than before,

as it is the ability. Unfortunately the law deterred them when anti gay bigotry was at its worst.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeddyR (Original post)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 06:23 PM

6. Oh! So cute...

...cute pink guns from the manufacturers to entice more fearful folk to become NRAterrorists and thus fail their first field-test of faith.*

Meanwhile, legal gun manufacturers are the source for essentially all guns in illegal hands.

But those are small numbers, hardly worth funding NRA propaganda to keep a few gunners tingly and legislators turned from looking into (hell! outlawing investigations into) the US public health risks and international terrorist truths and wanton waste of wars aided and abetted without infringement by gun manufacture for profit in the private industry.

Want to claim your founding fathers were supermen and knew the future so well they still incorporated cannon rights into the cannon of the constitution?
Bring back the Springfield Armory and government control of gun manufacture.

*Google Einstein

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sanatanadharma (Reply #6)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 07:14 PM

7. I don't believe this group is called

 

Pink Pistols because the handguns they use are pink.

The company's that manufacture guns are the source of all guns, those in the hands of criminals and those in the hands of law abiding citizens. But those manufacturers aren't the reason criminals are committing crimes, or terrorists terror. That is individual responsibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeddyR (Reply #7)

Wed Jun 29, 2016, 11:37 PM

9. I got a "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" vibe from the post you're replying to...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #9)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 01:48 PM

16. I believe that is an unpublished Phillip K. Dick novel. Sure of it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sanatanadharma (Reply #6)


Response to sanatanadharma (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 01:43 PM

13. "Bring back?" The government never controlled arms manufacturing with Springfield...

 

The armory was a major source for making military weapons, but one of many. Remington? Winchester? Colt? Marlin? Smith & Weston? And many others should ring a bell. Incidentally, Remington is 200 years old, and is the second oldest U.S. company which has continuously made the same line of products: firearms. It also made typewriters, computers, etc. along the way.

The oldest continuing company? Dupont. It makes munitions. Still.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sanatanadharma (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 03:04 PM

20. Soooo...

...got a question for you. What do you think of indigenous rights and tribal sovereignty?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeddyR (Original post)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 03:20 PM

21. pink-washing the murder industry

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mwrguy (Reply #21)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 03:26 PM

22. So you prefer that the LGBT community not have that choice?

 

Any other groups you feel you know better than, or is it just this one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread