We definitely won't get concealed carry done in this state without some serious coalition building, and according to some news reports it's possible a good number of the casualties at the Pulse night club shooting were from SWAT responding with little regard for the patrons. These are only initial reports, but if it turns out to be true then it begs the question if police view LGBT as second class citizens and expendable.

Regardless there never was a better opportunity to bring them over to our side, and possibly save some of their lives (and those around them) from extremist violence.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/police-admit-officers-orlando-shooting/

We definitely won't get concealed carry done in this state without some serious coalition building, and according to some news reports it's possible a good number of the casualties at the Pulse night club shooting were from SWAT responding with little regard for the patrons. These are only initial reports, but if it turns out to be true then it begs the question if police view LGBT as second class citizens and expendable.

Regardless there never was a better opportunity to bring them over to our side, and possibly save some of their lives (and those around them) from extremist violence.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/police-admit-officers-orlando-shooting/

I don't fault your intentions, but this is troubling to me.

I've seen many researchers and stats talking about the mental issues some in the LGBT community suffer from, most notably the transgenders.  I've personally known a few openly gay and lesbian coworkers who superficially appeared very normal in a workplace setting.  But under pressure or dealing with personal issues in their lives were a different story.  I won't stereotype by trying to describe what I saw, but to me, they had some definite problems handling stress and seemed to revert to "it's because I'm Gay" when someone had a disagreement -- almost the same as playing the race card when a minority doesn't get what they wanted.

Even with the mental health screening that's done here, I fear the lack of prior counseling or diagnosis will let more people slip through the cracks.   I'm not painting the whole group as crazy, but the stats show a higher frequency of psychological issues in the LGBT community than the general population.

Here's one source:

LGBTQ individuals are almost 3 times more likely than others to experience a mental health condition such as major depression or generalized anxiety disorder. This fear of coming out and being discriminated against for sexual orientation and gender identities, can lead to depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, thoughts of suicide and substance abuse.

LGBTQ people must confront stigma and prejudice based on their sexual orientation or gender identity while also dealing with the societal bias against mental health conditions. Some people report having to hide their sexual orientation from those in the mental health system for fear of being ridiculed or rejected. Some hide their mental health conditions from their LGBTQ friends.

As a community, LGBTQ individuals do not often talk about mental health and may lack awareness about mental health conditions. This sometimes prevents people from seeking the treatment and support that they need to get better.

https://www.nami.org/Find-Support/LGBTQ

I mentioned in another thread that my friend went to a rally at the state capital after the incident. His words of support were for the right for gays to have CCW so they could shoot the terrorist and he didn't receive a very warm welcome even though he was truly supportive of them. But overall, I will take any new supporters I can.

From that same article I posted:

The LGBTQ community is at a higher risk for suicide because we lack peer support and face harassment, mental health conditions and substance abuse. For LGBTQ people aged 10–24, suicide is one of the leading causes of death. LGBTQ youth are 4 times more likely and questioning youth are 3 times more likely to attempt suicide, experience suicidal thoughts or engage in self-harm than straight people. Between 38-65% of transgender individuals experience suicidal ideation.

Family support plays a particularly important role in affecting the likelihood of suicide. Someone who faced rejection after coming out to their families were more than 8 times more likely to have attempted suicide than someone who was accepted by their family after revealing their sexual orientation.

Since 61% of firearms deaths annually are suicides, is it really a good idea to introduce firearms to the community?  There's 2A, and then there is common sense. 

After every mass shooting, we call for better mental health evals so we can prevent having guns in the wrong hands.  Knowing the incidence of mental heath problems and suicides in this group, I'm just curious what your (OP) thoughts are.

A little bit of a side issue but does anyone else thing combining LGBT into one group ends up being misleading? They combine different groups of people with their own unique issues into one group and then tries to make statements as if they apply to all in the group. For example suicide rates are higher but are they equally higher among all of the groups or is just one segment of the group the cause for the higher rate of suicide?

I don't know if this matters in terms of where we get gun support from but it seems like combining groups like this could end up drowning out individual voices and issues unique to that group.

Does anyone have any ideas on how we might go about attracting individuals who are gay or trans or bi?

A little bit of a side issue but does anyone else thing combining LGBT into one group ends up being misleading? They combine different groups of people with their own unique issues into one group and then tries to make statements as if they apply to all in the group. For example suicide rates are higher but are they equally higher among all of the groups or is just one segment of the group the cause for the higher rate of suicide?

I don't know if this matters in terms of where we get gun support from but it seems like combining groups like this could end up drowning out individual voices and issues unique to that group.

Does anyone have any ideas on how we might go about attracting individuals who are gay or trans or bi?

An earlier report published in April 2011 by the Williams Institute estimated that 3.8 percent of Americans identified as gay/lesbian, bisexual, or transgender: 1.7 percent as lesbian or gay, 1.8 percent as bisexual, and 0.3 percent as transgender.

By voluntarily joining as one group, the subgroups have a slightly larger voice than they would separately.  Trying to segregate them for any purpose is not going to sit well with the community as a whole.  They see their lifestyles as something  they have in common, and using suicide rates to treat them differently from each other will be seen as divisive and discriminatory.

It's understandable how people might have some issues after being constantly condemned their whole lives as sexual deviants, even though historically (as wellas through the modern era) they have been some of the fiercest warriors and have made countless valuable contributions to society.

It's understandable how people might have some issues if they are constantly condemned their whole lives as sexual deviants, even though historically (as wellas through the modern era) they have been some of the fiercest warriors and have made countless valuable contributions to society.

Being a fierce warrior is a great thing, if you are in a war or mortal combat.

In our current situation, we need psychologically balanced people owning guns.  Until there is a tool or test for figuring out how balanced or unbalanced someone is, straight or not, we should look at existing risk factors.  If studies show LGBTQ communities have a higher instance of mental health issues, maybe that doesn't need to be an immediate disqualifier.  Maybe it can be a flag to require a more indepth background check, including friend and family interviews, and a professional psych eval versus simple records check?? 

It would set a dangerous precedent, and ultimately undermine the goal of becoming more inclusive. Do you really want more gun laws than are already on the books?

I don't see the problem because in the end people can do what they want. If the person feels they want the responsibility of protecting themselves and their loved ones, go right for it.  I don't see how this would be different than any other group of individuals.  The right to defend one self is for everyone.  Seems that the message the leaders of these groups is that of appeasement towards their attackers, and many still fall in line.  Why? I cannot understand?   If I was a particularly targeted person, I'd want to fight for that right, even more so.  However, many don't feel that way. 

By voluntarily joining as one group, the subgroups have a slightly larger voice than they would separately.  Trying to segregate them for any purpose is not going to sit well with the community as a whole.  They see their lifestyles as something  they have in common, and using suicide rates to treat them differently from each other will be seen as divisive and discriminatory.

That certainly makes sense but theoretically you could have a gay individual who does not support the transgender issue.

Being a fierce warrior is a great thing, if you are in a war or mortal combat.

In our current situation, we need psychologically balanced people owning guns.  Until there is a tool or test for figuring out how balanced or unbalanced someone is, straight or not, we should look at existing risk factors.  If studies show LGBTQ communities have a higher instance of mental health issues, maybe that doesn't need to be an immediate disqualifier.  Maybe it can be a flag to require a more indepth background check, including friend and family interviews, and a professional psych eval versus simple records check??

How would the government even go about addressing that issue? Put on gun permit applications a question of whether they are LGBT and requiring them to go see a doctor?

I see the concern you are getting at but I think you run into great difficulty because that solution ends up hurting the rights of the majority for a small minority.

Black males commit crime at a higher rate but we couldn't justify stopping them more just because they are black.

Black males commit crime at a higher rate but we couldn't justify stopping them more just because they are black.

Yeah, "profiling" is the epitome of political incorrectness. Thus the 85-year-old woman at the airport is randomly selected for extensive screening/searched while the obvious younger muslim is randomly allowed to pass the least intrusive check. That makes sense.

How would the government even go about addressing that issue? Put on gun permit applications a question of whether they are LGBT and requiring them to go see a doctor?

I see the concern you are getting at but I think you run into great difficulty because that solution ends up hurting the rights of the majority for a small minority.

Black males commit crime at a higher rate but we couldn't justify stopping them more just because they are black.

That's funny, since the small minority of law abiding, legal gun owners ever commit crimes, yet the vast majority are asked to compromise their rights.

For me, taking the libertarian stance, gay or not gay, whatever, irrelevant.

American = right to bear arms.

If that individual decides to commit suicide, that is their own choice.

If that individual decides to go on a gun rampage, he or she should be shot by nearby armed Americans and/or police.

Prejudice = pre judging someone based on something they have not yet done or even might ever do. It is unAmerican to presume a person guilty simply by association (perceived association in many cases; for example nobody chooses to be born with a certain skin color, or even perhaps sexual orientation -- I say perhaps because in some cases it seems it is a choice and in other cases not a choice, and either way I think we need to remember all these are individual people and, specifically, American people).

In a nutshell, are they Americans? If so, then add them to the general pool of people with American rights. (That other people freely waive their own rights of arms is their own choice, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of other Americans to bear arms -- that is the principle of course)

For me, taking the libertarian stance, gay or not gay, whatever, irrelevant.

American = right to bear arms.

If that individual decides to commit suicide, that is their own choice.

If that individual decides to go on a gun rampage, he or she should be shot by nearby armed Americans and/or police.

Prejudice = pre judging someone based on something they have not yet done or even might ever do. It is unAmerican to presume a person guilty simply by association (perceived association in many cases; for example nobody chooses to be born with a certain skin color, or even perhaps sexual orientation -- I say perhaps because in some cases it seems it is a choice and in other cases not a choice, and either way I think we need to remember all these are individual people and, specifically, American people).

In a nutshell, are they Americans? If so, then add them to the general pool of people with American rights. (That other people freely waive their own rights of arms is their own choice, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of other Americans to bear arms -- that is the principle of course)

Are you saying  there is no line between certain "high risk groups" and "Americans in general?"

Mental incompetence or psychosis
Violent Felons
People with a history of suicide attempts
Ties with known terrorists or other criminals (organized crime)
Sexual Predators
Domestic Abusers

Is there no room in the Libertarian dictionary for "high risk groups," or are we all allowed to make our own choice no matter what?

It seems to be pretty obvious AT FIRST BLUSH that high risk groups should be considered separately.

BUT first using the libertarian principle, I then test to see if it is valid and makes sense.

Now, ASSUMING that the "high risk group" has not already committed crimes (back to the "presumed innocent" discussion), they are therefore considered everyday Americans.

FURTHERMORE, if you consider that "patriotic Americans" (those who "cling" to the Constitution) can in the future (actually already) labeled a "high risk group" then you can see why the libertarian principle makes sense.

Gun rights are provided to Americans as a whole class of citizenry. The abuse of gun rights of one person, or a small group, is to be thwarted by other armed lawful Americans in self-defense.

No different than abuse of free speech (libel/slander) is to be thwarted by free speech (proving the slander was a lie, and therefore subject to lawsuit).

So just to highlight the "gay risk" issue, what this means is, if one wishes to say that LGBT people are high risk, then their mental condition needs to be legally defined as such.

It used to be the case, but is not today. (Homosexuality was defined as an abnormal mental condition).

I am making no judgement on that. I am saying that is what is the factual and legal basis.

You can legally define black people as high risk. You can legally define black people as having no American rights. Etc. (All this has happened before).

Hopefully now you can see why it is a "high risk" area to wander into, when groups are being defined in certain ways.

You MUST have valid medical, scientific reason, to categorize people to DENY them rights.

(I am NOT saying that BONA FIDE MENTALLY INCOMPETENT or VIOLENT ABUSERS are to be given guns, but they must be LEGALLY and FACTUALLY proven to be such persons).

Enjoy!