If you're excruciatingly offended by a silly turn of phrase, you can probably relate to people who whine about being misgendered. It's exactly as nonsensical. I must say, I'm getting a bit weary of the language policing Chris.
The trouble with conflating issues. If the issue is restricting something like a type of firearm, knowledge of firearms seems essential to making a decision. It can be honestly argued that it has nothing to do with mass shootings which nearly always happen in firearm free kill zones where people could not defend themselves from a bow and quiver of arrows.
I'm not trying to start a debate about a subject that is not a part of this commentary. I'm pointing out that I understand your frustration with people bringing in arguments from adjacent issues. Unfortunately, it is a part of the throw everything that isn't bolted down at an issue, hoping that something will stick.
It is also purposeful insult which does not facilitate thoughtful debate. If someone spits in my eye, I assume that they want to fight, rather than debate.
If you can’t articulate in great detail the difference between automatic and semiautomatic then you have no right to an opinion on mass shootings.
I am shocked to see that excruciatingly offensive “you do you” shit in this column. If I keep seeing that, I will need to leave.
"excruciatingly offensive"
If you're excruciatingly offended by a silly turn of phrase, you can probably relate to people who whine about being misgendered. It's exactly as nonsensical. I must say, I'm getting a bit weary of the language policing Chris.
Noted
I think Chris is being sarcastic?
Sadly not.
The trouble with conflating issues. If the issue is restricting something like a type of firearm, knowledge of firearms seems essential to making a decision. It can be honestly argued that it has nothing to do with mass shootings which nearly always happen in firearm free kill zones where people could not defend themselves from a bow and quiver of arrows.
I'm not trying to start a debate about a subject that is not a part of this commentary. I'm pointing out that I understand your frustration with people bringing in arguments from adjacent issues. Unfortunately, it is a part of the throw everything that isn't bolted down at an issue, hoping that something will stick.
It is also purposeful insult which does not facilitate thoughtful debate. If someone spits in my eye, I assume that they want to fight, rather than debate.