this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2025
444 points (98.9% liked)

Television

1220 readers
210 users here now

Welcome to Television

This community is for discussion of anything related to television or streaming.

Other Communities

Other Television Communities

:

A community for discussion of anything related to Television via broadcast or streaming.

Rules:

  1. Be respectful and courteous to all members.

  2. Avoid offensive or discriminatory remarks.

  3. Avoid spamming or promoting unrelated products/services.

  4. Avoid personal attacks or engaging in heated arguments.

  5. Do not engage in any form of illegal activity or promote illegal content.

  6. Please mask any and all spoilers with spoiler tags. ****

founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
Skavau@lemm.ee
Skavau@lemmy.world
BoozeOrWater@lemm.ee
MimicJar@lemm.ee
444
'King of the Hill' Voice Actor Jonathan Joss Fatally Shot in Texas (www.tmz.com)
submitted 3 days ago by Skavau@lemm.ee to c/Television@lemm.ee
109 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] helpmyusernamewontfi@lemmy.today 13 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca -4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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.

[–] helpmyusernamewontfi@lemmy.today 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago

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.