'King of the Hill' Voice Actor Jonathan Joss Fatally Shot in Texas
'King of the Hill' Voice Actor Jonathan Joss Fatally Shot in Texas
8:41 AM PT -- San Antonio PD tells TMZ ... Sigfredo Alvarez Ceja was arrested and charged with murder. Bond has been set at $200K.
You're viewing a single thread.
Fuck owning guns and fuck owning guns for personal protection.
Handguns are the dumbest fucking thing in the world for society to allow. Lets make killing someone as easy as pressing a button at a distance! That's gotta a be a good necessary thing for anyone to do on a whim.
I 100% agree we need way more restrictions when it comes to firearms, but it is absolutely necessary for people to have a firearm for their own protection. I personally know activists, especially LGBT rights activists, who's life depended on that side holster of theirs and are still here to this day because of it.
Canada, the UK, Europe, Australia, New Zealand would all show that what you're saying is false.
This argument is nonsense pushed forward by the gun industry to try and get leftists on their side. Allowing for activists to freely own handguns means that counter activists will which makes everyone less safe.
This argument is nonsense pushed forward by the gun industry to try and get leftists on their side.
I was speaking from my own experience, that didn't come from any industry or organization. If it did I would've said something like "we need fewer gun restrictions!!" I'm speaking personally and sharing my experiences as an activist. It's what made me start to carry for me and my peers safety based off what I have previously told you. Because I also believe that my queer friend wouldnt still be here if not for her firearm.
But I absolutely protest for greater gun restrictions and want to actually allow the CDC to investigate gun violence. Because, yes, the CDC isn't allowed to.
It's worth drawing the distinction between 'if guns are allowed, activists should consider carrying' vs 'guns should be allowed so that activists can carry'.
The former I agree with, the latter I think is nonsense.
Allowing for activists to freely own handguns means that counter activists will which makes everyone less safe.
Order of operation is a bit mixed up here.
No, the order of operations does not matter because both sides lead back to the other. That's called a feedback loop and you are participating in it rather than breaking out of it.
The only way to win the game of 'whose going to be safest by buying more guns' is not to play.
At a time when our government is increasingly fascist and it's clear they want to eliminate classes of people, I'm thinking the wrong people have been buying the guns.
Armed people cannot defend themselves against the logistics of any organised force.
What people with guns can do against fascism is hide & covertly attack guerrilla/terrorist style so that the confrontation doesn't allow oppressing force to use it's force/time/reach/etc.
I do not mean that as a bad or un-heroic thing, just as the last resort of protest.
But this situation would not turn out any better had there been more guns involved. Only in case of 0 guns the situation might have been better.
Oh yeah, good luck fighting the army with your handguns.
You don't overthrow armies by lining up and going toe-to-toe.
A handgun is concealable. If we need guns, we need to appear anonymous until we're using them up close.
And you don't target soldiers. You target those behind them.
We need to widely allow handguns because of all the progress that's constantly made from assassinating politicians with handguns?
Please do list all the politicians assassinated by handguns and how much progress that made. I'll follow with a list of activists murdered by handguns.
Let's see whose is longer.
That's the thing about guns. They're evil until they're necessary. But then they're essential.
We still aren't at the point where we need to start using them en masse, but we've never been closer as a nation, and it's absolutely time to start learning how to use them.
Please cite the incidents in which owning a personal pistol has been essential and why. I will follow with a list of political activists who have been assassinated with pistols owned by idiots.
Let's see whose is longer.
Yeah, a family with all the guns doesn't stand a chance against a few musket-wielding soldiers - they can just outwait them around the house.
It's not a 5 minute fight when you are dealing with an organised force. Civilians will fold after a week without supermarket access/water/electricity/food.
People over estimate how cool and collected they are.
The other day some asshole was letting his dog shit on the sidewalk and not picking it up. I saw. He saw me see. We made eye contact. He called me a coward and walked away.
In that moment I was emotionally ready to murder him. Just put his smug ass on the ground with his dog shit. Luckily, I don't carry a gun so I just yelled at him. But if I had a gun on me? No way the scene would have gone better.
There's a pretty big gulf between yelling at someone and shooting them... Had you considered non life-threatening physical force? Or do you always go right to murder
The point of the anecdote was that when people get really mad, they don't think rationally. If I had a gun, it would have been really easy in that moment to pull it out and use it. That's too easy.
(Though yes, I did briefly consider picking up his dog's shit with a plastic bag of my own, and hitting him in the face with it, but by then I had cooled down enough to realize I didn't want to potentially ruin my life by assaulting a guy on the street.)
Counterpoint:
Maybe it would have.