04/12/2006
Gays with Guns: Fighting Violence with Threats of More
Are guns the answer to gay bashing? A Philadelphia group called the Pink Pistols seems to think so. They hold monthly get togethers and then shoot together at a nearby range:
"...the Pink Pistols are among the most mundane-looking human beings you could ever possibly meet. There are no tight shirts, no Versace bags and no Indigo Girls T-shirts. You could walk past one of these gun-packing people in the grocery store and not even notice them.'We break down stereotypes when we can,' says Patton, a freckled, heavyset 43-year-old woman clad in nondescript loose-fitting clothing. 'People look at us, and it plays with their brains.'
None of these people would be welcome on the set of Will & Grace. At the same time, you'd never guess that any of them has a gun strapped under their arm, or resting in their pocket, or waiting under the seat of their car."
Normal or not normal, imho having more guns in the world will do little to prevent hate crimes. Guns don't change attitudes.
Posted 1:16 PM EST by Andy Towle in Current Affairs | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I personally like the ankle holster. LEss bulky stuff around your waist or stuck in your pit.
Posted by: TonkaManOR | Apr 12, 2006 1:24:28 PM
guns are bad, blah blah blah, but i love that philly atty-tood!
Posted by: j-vass | Apr 12, 2006 1:56:37 PM
Guns are so... Republican.
I give them credit; at times in my life when I had hate crimes against me and my home, I thought of getting a gun for protection.
I've elected to move to a more accepting part of the country.
Posted by: Rad | Apr 12, 2006 2:16:31 PM
Of course guns won't change minds but whining about being persecuted and obssessing about Madonna won't do it either.Quite frankly,when we deal with hatemongers,we fight fire with fire.That's the only way.
Posted by: JudeMillsy | Apr 12, 2006 2:16:36 PM
Eurgh, more guns? If it's a stereotype that gay people aren't liekly to own guns, then it's one I am proud of - it shows intelligence.
Posted by: Madison | Apr 12, 2006 2:19:05 PM
Scary. That's Philly for you. I lived there for 5 years, then in NYC for 5. Hands down, Philly was by far the more dangerous. It's a filthy nasty place, and gays with guns sure ain't making it any safer. How about ridding it of rampant corruption by it's official, police, and organized crime? NYC can teach Philly lots of lessons. Until then, don't go unless you are armed.
Posted by: Ian | Apr 12, 2006 2:44:27 PM
This is so Justin going pink skinhead in QAF. Those crazy Pennsylvanians!
Posted by: Scott | Apr 12, 2006 3:04:18 PM
I'm no NRAer and haven't had a gun since I was a teenager and pheasant hunted with my dad. However, I just watched The Pianist on DVD the other night and it made me wonder...What if the Jews of Europe armed themselves in the 1930's...might history taken a slightly different course?
Posted by: Brett | Apr 12, 2006 3:04:53 PM
Bingo, Brett!
An unarmed populace is a submissive one, that's why it's in the Constitution and that's why the Brits took their citizens guns away.
Posted by: Mitch | Apr 12, 2006 3:12:27 PM
well whatever frees up parking...
Posted by: mac | Apr 12, 2006 3:20:02 PM
Unarmed = submissive? Are you for real? An unarmed populace is very often unarmed by choice, which is a completely domineering act. I choose not to own a gun...I am conforming to nobody. Threaten me and see how submissive I am. Threaten the Brits and see how submissive they are.
If the Jews had guns, would the holocaust have been different? Not a chance, they would have been just as dead. The Nazi's did not discriminate during WWII, they killed thousands who were armed and thousands who were unarmed. In fact if the Jews would have amred themselves and fought back, violence would have escalated which means even more would have died and the war would have lasted much longer.
Posted by: Sean | Apr 12, 2006 3:33:36 PM
I say hooray...I say to Sean, can you be more oblique? And I love this concept that somehow Sean knows what would or would not have happened in WWII..love to see your crystal ball...(if Robert Kennedy had lived, the world would be like....)
Posted by: Archie | Apr 12, 2006 3:58:04 PM
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
Posted by: Rik | Apr 12, 2006 4:00:07 PM
"...if the Jews would have amred themselves and fought back, violence would have escalated which means even more would have died and the war would have lasted much longer."
You must be French.
Posted by: Mitch | Apr 12, 2006 4:11:01 PM
No? If a gay basher approaches me and I stick my gun in his ugly face, I bet I could change his attitude pretty quickly.
Posted by: Anon1 | Apr 12, 2006 4:46:55 PM
Bravo Pink Pistols. Fighting hate, one headshot at a time.
Posted by: hadassah weinreb | Apr 12, 2006 5:00:37 PM
There's a huge difference between the government rounding jews up and a loan gay basher trying to knock the shit out of me on my way to may car.
Comparing the two is plain disingenuous. I think a gun in the second situation would serve me very well. Oh, and the government would sanction it. It's called self defense.
Posted by: Anon1 | Apr 12, 2006 5:32:04 PM
to Mitch/I don't agree at all with Sean,and I'm French..anyhow those comments are very unappropriate.
Posted by: Pierre (from Paris.France) | Apr 12, 2006 5:54:21 PM
If gays had a "by any means necessary" type history of including a willingness to respond to anti-gay violence and anti-gay discrimination with violence the way the black community has our laws and society would look very different than they do today. Some better, some worse.
I've always understood why we chose a non-violent approach to civil rights. Also, our situation was never quite as dire as it has been in the black community so there's not even as much of a widespread acceptance of it in our community. But while I'm not willing to go to prison for killing gay-bashers to make a point, I've always secretly longed for the day when I can turn on the TV and see it happening as routinely as anti-gay hate crimes go unreported. After a while, when the likelihood of gay people responding to an attempted gay bashing by whipping out a gun and maiming or killing his attackers sinks into the public psyche, you will begin to hear less about anti-gay physical attacks. Probably not by much at first, but I can’t help but believe it would act as a deterrent to some. Sure homophobia would find more covert avenues but it’s both covert and overt right now.
You can’t say, “violence is never ok.” It’s a non sequitur if you look at our world today. If I start seeing gay people going to prison for killing their attackers my heart will go out to each and every one of them, not the dead gay basher.
Posted by: Chad Hanging | Apr 12, 2006 7:43:49 PM
The perception is that gay men will just fall down and let themselves be kicked. A nice glock would change that perception nicely.
I heard that the NRA calls the gun the great equalizer - might help that elderly guy on the way to his cadillac.
But just like I discovered the time I brought a beer bottle into a "heated exchange" once - you bring it in doesn't mean that it won't be used AGAINST you.
Posted by: ruckus | Apr 12, 2006 10:11:54 PM
We've just enacted laws here in Alabama that allow us to shoot anyone on our property that we find threatening. We don't have to prove their intent, or that they were armed. Just their unauthorized presence on our property is deemed proper justification.
I can't wait to see how many gun toting home owners are killed with their own guns.
Carrying a gun is a long way from being able to kill a person with it. You can polish it and practice with it all you want, but until you can look down that barrel into the face of another man, and make the decision to kill him, that gun's just another piece of jewelry to a theif or a thug. And they'll take it from you and kill you with it, unless you can bring yourself to kill him first.
I'd like to see the whole world armed with nothing more lethal than a big, garlicky salami. But I'm in the minority here, for a change. Guns are here to stay.
Posted by: Jay Croce | Apr 12, 2006 11:18:02 PM
See it come along and
don't know where it's from
Oh, yes you will find out
Well, it happens all the time
It's censored from our minds
You'll find out
Stand up coming years
and escalation fears
Oh, yes we will find out
Well, like a withered stone
Fears will pierce your bones
You'll find out
Oh we're waiting, oh we're waiting
Waiting for someone to come out of somewhere
Posted by: Chad Hanging | Apr 12, 2006 11:42:59 PM
I have mixed feeling about the violence and what the out come may be..... but I'd be proud if I read a news story about some basher getting blown away as he tried to kill what he thought was a sissy boy. That the gay guy pulled out a gun and blew his fucking brains out. It might just send the lesson out that gay men and women Will fight back.
It might just be coming to that....
Posted by: Hunter | Apr 13, 2006 2:04:26 AM
Leaving aside the gay bashing issue, it`s now 2006 - don`t you think we should perhaps be aiming to disarm individuals on the planet, rather than hoping Abercrombie & Fitch bring out a range we can easily accessorize.
Guns are bad. Having guns means people use guns. Everyone having guns means more people use guns. An unarmed populace is a safe population, not submissive. The Brits didn`t take their citizens guns away. The Yanks should have.
We don`t not have the right to self-defence. We have the right to not be attacked. That is a big difference.
Posted by: Peter Rivendell | Apr 13, 2006 3:41:10 AM
We do not have the right to self-defence - is what I meant to say. Oh, blah.
Posted by: Peter Rivendell | Apr 13, 2006 3:42:21 AM