This is a completely disgusting and incredibly offensive post.
I expect better from you at this point.
You are replying to someone discussing fears of being harrased and attacked on “Transgender Day of Remembrance,” who was concerned about their safety after another hateful attack on the LGBTQ community by advocating for a hateful movie aggainst transwomen.
This is a thread about gun violence, and what can be done to combat it.
If you want to continue to promote hate under the guise of free speech that has continued to lead to these type of violent acts, please find another thread to do that.
The problem with this is that it would amount to a de facto ban of many, many guns already in gun lockers around the country, rendering this unlikely to pass and less likely to be complied with.
Limiting the capacity of removable magazines, however, is a better balance of actually being achievable and maintaining utility/“fun” of the weapons. (Although current court rulings seem to be headed down the path of such limits being contrary to the Second Amendments.)
The problem with “assault style weapon” bans is that most people who advocate for them are essentially advocating for “weapons that look scary”…and that’s not very effective. There have been attempts at defining restrictions in such a way as to get at aspects of the weapons that make them more dangerous, but even then the restrictions have been worded such that they can be worked around. Connecticut has an assault weapons ban, but it’s still possible to legally configure an AR-15 style rifle that complies with CT law and has most of its utility.
One idea that hasn’t been talked about much: make firearm owners civilly, or perhaps even criminally liable for acts performed by guns others acquired from them, unless that acquisition included a suitable background check.
Gun owners might take more care with securing their weapons etc. after the first few lawsuits or convictions.
So you equate opposing censorship with the promotion of hate. Out of curiousity have you watched the movie. Do you think YouTube which has an explicit policy of not allowing hate speech should remove the film? If so please report it to YouTube.
Hate speech is not allowed on YouTube. We remove content promoting violence or hatred against individuals or groups based on any of the following attributes:
Age
Caste
Disability
Ethnicity
Gender Identity and Expression
Nationality
Race
Immigration Status
Religion
Sex/Gender
Sexual Orientation
Victims of a major violent event and their kin
Veteran Status
If you find content that violates this policy, report it. Instructions for reporting violations of our Community Guidelines are available here. If you’ve found a few videos or comments that you would like to report, you can report the channel.
Still not following. Are you saying the movie watching/protest was a response to the shooting? Or that the shooter saw the movie? Or that both the movie-showing and shooting were both anti-trans-remembrance?
It just seems like you brought this up out of the blue.
The issue is what is the cause of the shooting. Many (not necessarily on this forum) are attributing it to statements in the public domain that could be considered anti gay or anti trans. My point of view is when there is no explicit call for violence by merely opposition to a particular lifestyle choice it should not be considered hate speech.
Hate speech and explicitly calling for violence against something are not the same thing. What Matt Walsh spreads is undeniably trans hate.
But I don’t understand the relevance to this thread. Other than the timing, I haven’t seen anything to suggest that this shooting was targeted at the trans community in particular instead of the broader LGBT community.
Sounds needlessly confusing to bring up in this thread. Particularly if nobody here has suggested that it’s related to the shooting. Maybe start a hate-speech / censorship thread?
It is just distracting. If someone had, for example, shot up a synagogue, and you were like, “some random people in my college want to remove mien kompf from the library, but I think it’s censorship!” you may or may not have a point, but it’s probably the wrong time and place to bring it up.
I don’t think you understand the difference between advocacy and tolerance. Do you believe that someone who supports a woman’s right to choose abortion is advocating for abortion?
OK we have another mass shooting, We need more gun control and better ways of identifying high risk individuals. Do you have anything else to add? As I said some people are diirectly blaming speech for the shooting. Even if there is some rrelationship, I am saying that speech opposing a particular lifestyle choice should not be censored.
I’m personally more concerned about “weapons that look cool”. It seems like someone would be more prone to do something like this if they can look like an action hero while doing it.
I think the verbiage needs to be “high capacity and high velocity” to state specifically why it’s “scary”; like able to decapitate and pulverize small children who can only be identified by DNA samples. Forget the “AR-15 type” description.
For those not bothering to click on the link I posted, I think the issue of prohibited speech is relevant to this incident.
“You can draw a straight line from the false and vile rhetoric about LGBTQ people spread by extremists and amplified across social media, to the nearly 300 anti-LGBTQ bills introduced this year, to the dozens of attacks on our community just like this one,” Ellis tweeted on Sunday.
“Elected officials and corporate leaders must act immediately to prioritize this truth, and protect everyone’s safety.”