Violence erupted at the University of California, Los Angeles after pro-Israeli counter-demonstrators attacked a pro-Palestinian campus encampment. Bubbling tensions on the campus boiled over following the alleged breach of a “buffer zone” between the rival groups.
Guns being present would have only resulted in many MANY deaths. That’s what you want?
I have seen a lot of shalafi’s comments in the past and I think the answer to that question is “yes.”
Nah. You have to do it right, that’s all. Everyone mudt show up in plate armor open carrying fighting rifles. This is what the right has done, and more importantly it also has worked for the left (see: protecting drag queens from right wing protests). You don’t instigate shit. Just stand there. If you’re heavily armed, out in the open, and peaceful, the cops and counter protests can’t make up an excuse to start shit, and they are extremely unmotivated to do so.
I want people to use their right to defend themselves instead of licking boots.
If it’s the attackers, then yeah, thats the point. Guns are a deterrent.
Guns are NOT a deterrent. They’re an escalation and most often an unnecessary one.
Nuclear weapons are an escalation, an effective one at that.
Ah yes. Nothing describes a gun better then splitting atoms at the subatomic level.
Ah yes, nothing wins an argument better than not understanding it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_MOVE_bombing
What a deterrent