zlacker

>>david9+(OP)
pragmatically, you can't kill an idea with bullets. terrorism does one thing only: it triggers retaliation. nihilistic accelerationists who want a war can use terror to provoke one.

some of Charlie Kirk's last words:

> ATTENDEE: Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?

> KIRK: Too many. [Applause]

I don't think the shooter was trans. but I'm trans, and I don't see this going well for me, or for my community. the DoJ was already talking about classifying us as "mentally defective" to take our guns. now there's a martyr. the hornet's nest is kicked.

murdering this man was not just wrong, it was stupid.

>>sterli+8j1
As an outsider, how did trans people get dragged into the gun debate?! Did I miss a major mass shooting by a trans person? Was their gender relevant to the shooting?

>>addand+ne2
Being transgender is not relevant to shootings, but there are voices that are trying to make that happen.

My opinion on why it gained traction: the group is already marginalized, is part of a larger, also marginalized group (lgbtq community), and shootings are unpopular, while guns are, so it benefits the speaker to connect the two. There are also narratives floating around that are in synergy with this connection, such as the tragic statistic that trans people have a very high suicide rate, and the false narrative that being transgender is a mental illness.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/transgender-mass-shootings...