he led with a no. I wasn’t incorrect. “Why not both” comes to my mind, didn’t come to his tho!
There is a difference between “yes, and” and “no, but”. I rather think a ‘yes’, would have done just fine where that ‘no’ was, but apparently I was to be told No. No, I was incorrect that anger is one of the things you’re probably supposed to feel after a terrorist attack and there is another truer feeling to have?? ffs?
I’d rather talk about the lovely building if we’re not going to talk about feelings in an accepting way:
I was thinking that it was once I heard the director of the center say it was bullet resistant, in the video at the link @shuck provided.
if rounding up is bad form in headlines, then rounding down is bad form in comments. Enough minimizing what happened. This was an explicit threat of bodily harm to people who identify as LGBTQ.
‘just’ pellets… oh, well, may as well have hugged them.
Police in Tulsa, Okla., are investigating two incidents within one day at an LGBTQ center in Tulsa, Oklahoma, including more than a dozen pellet rounds fired at the building’s window and door.
Pellet gun doesn’t necessarily equate to “child’s toy”. Most folks have the mental image of something like a “red ryder” bb gun, but modern pellet guns are pretty potent. I’ve got one that can scream pellets at roughly 1200fps. Your average .22lr round goes somewhere around that speed. Yeah, there’s a difference in mass, generally about 6-7gr vs 36-40gr. I wouldn’t want to get hit by either.
And because they’re technically not “firearms” (not being powder/explosive actuated) most of the gun rules don’t apply to them…
And to not derail: How F-ing stupid are people? Not gay? Horrified by the idea? Great! Don’t suck a dick (if you’re a guy) etc… Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t get gay married! Hate interracial mixing? Don’t have an interracial significant other. You live in your little regressive head, and don’t try to make everyone else conform to your sad little worldview. How small/insecure of a person do you have to be to not be able to “live and let live”? Most if not all of these things that people get so bent about actually affect their lives so little.
I used to hunt squirrels with them as a kid at my uncle’s place in Georgia. Same with slingshots. Both are pretty potent even if they probably are not deadly.
Yup. you can make an air rifle powerful enough to actually destroy normal pellets. A Weirauch or suchlike with a gas spring is a pretty fucking dangerous item. I vaguely recall a brand that was basically a .22 rifle slug made for that very reason. Lem Spitzer possibly?
yeah, my brother and i had one when we were younger where with a simple file we could adjust the pressure limiter and we’d double the pressure the pellets were shot at. we used the tipped pellets and blew apart several metal matchbox cars.
anyone who had ever hunted with a slingshot knows you don’t want to get hit by one of those bearings at any reasonable range.
they are still pretty darn powerful and no joking matter if turned against another human or an animal.
That’s what it is. Something about this news was bothering me beyond the actual crime, and I realized that I was reacting to my own complete lack of surprise or sense of shock.
Well, they said they confirmed it was a pellet gun, but it doesn’t much matter - since it was intended as a threat, done when no one was around, it did its work to cause damage and sow terror.
I guess that also explains why it’s intact, as there would have been more damage otherwise. Sadly, I imagine this isn’t the first time someone has broken those windows, so it makes sense it would already have bullet resistant glass.
The depressing thing is I’d say that in a way it’s been normal for a very long time–minorities are an easy target, after all. What I find depressing is even when I feel like there’s some progress being made there’s the inevitable pushback.
And I’m not referring to this incident which would be disturbing enough even if it happened in isolation. I’m referring to the linked article at the end about legislative attempts to strip LGBT people of local protections. The people who push this sort of legislation often defend it by saying everyone should be treated equally even as they’re trying to make sure not everyone is treated equally.
I live in a state without a hate crimes law, and while I am skeptical of the continued utility of such laws (c.f. recent attempts to classify police as a protected class under these laws) I always take it as a sign that crimes against minority groups are officially taken less seriously by the state in question.
It’s interesting to see that the fair-weather liberals who have previously objected to the idea that we need to defend ourselves are nowhere to be seen on this topic.
They said they would be there when we needed them. Well, we need them.
We need them NOW!
Or are we going to have to wait for the first murder? Maybe the first ten murders? Hundred? By that time it has become normalised and it will be too late.
The Pink Pistols is a grass roots org and a LGBQT centric group that is open to all and promotes a network of defense training and education.
I haven’t had direct contact with them, and I imagine how good they are varies between local groups, but I think they are a good resource for anyone fearful and wanting to defend themselves.
Defense by defensive actions? Or defense by offensive actions? These are two different things. I’ve never heard even the most limp-willed liberal state that simply reacting to the use of force with force is a problem. So if it’s the latter I continue to have reservations.
I want to be very clear about one thing: The moral right to use violence is not synonymous with the ability to use it effectively or wisely. I do not question the left’s understanding of violence as its victims, I do question the left’s understanding of violence as a means to project power, as evidenced by discussions which seem to promote the idea that simply using violence is the means to the end, and that violence is a language to be understood, rather than a tool one selects to achieve a goal. I have not seen a maturity in the discussions around violence that inspires in me one iota of confidence that the left understands how to employ violence. This disease goes way back, too. Anyone who’s ever read Homage to Catalonia knows what I’m talking about.
This goes well beyond the question of whether or not violence is justified or wise. It goes to the idea that if you are committed to violence… then commit. I demand you know what you’re doing before you drag us into a course of action. “Us” being the majority of people who will not be directly involved, but absolutely affected by the use of violence. “Us” being the communities to whom you owe the obligation of seeking consent from before you employ violence in our name. You want to insist that violence is the way to go? Fine. Convince me you’re good at it.
Except that the Christian moderates are more concerned with maintaining their privilege than speaking out against the people that are being threatened.
