I like seeing this sort of debate at length, not just the edited highlights. It gives all sides space to make their points & bring in different contextual information, rather than having a simplistic, reductionist argument - even when the contextual information contains completely self-defeating claims like saying that the right to own a…
I like seeing this sort of debate at length, not just the edited highlights. It gives all sides space to make their points & bring in different contextual information, rather than having a simplistic, reductionist argument - even when the contextual information contains completely self-defeating claims like saying that the right to own a gun is god-given, in a country that (at the moment) claims to have separation of church & state.
Something did occur to me while I was reading, though.
How many mass shootings are committed by women?
That should be easy info to get hold of.
Perhaps logically the US should only allow women to own rapid-fire guns with large magazine capacity... now that would put the cat among the pigeons, wouldn't it?
I think the issue here is with men feeling that they have the right to protect "their women", instead of understanding that women, like men, should always be respected as individuals & anyone who places people somewhere where they need protection is mentally ill. Even if they're a senator, or a president, or extremely rich, they need treatment in a secure institution until they understand why this is wrong.
Like I said, just putting cats among pigeons here. Food for thought.
I like seeing this sort of debate at length, not just the edited highlights. It gives all sides space to make their points & bring in different contextual information, rather than having a simplistic, reductionist argument - even when the contextual information contains completely self-defeating claims like saying that the right to own a gun is god-given, in a country that (at the moment) claims to have separation of church & state.
Something did occur to me while I was reading, though.
How many mass shootings are committed by women?
That should be easy info to get hold of.
Perhaps logically the US should only allow women to own rapid-fire guns with large magazine capacity... now that would put the cat among the pigeons, wouldn't it?
I think the issue here is with men feeling that they have the right to protect "their women", instead of understanding that women, like men, should always be respected as individuals & anyone who places people somewhere where they need protection is mentally ill. Even if they're a senator, or a president, or extremely rich, they need treatment in a secure institution until they understand why this is wrong.
Like I said, just putting cats among pigeons here. Food for thought.