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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.