• BobTheDestroyer
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    We’ve been arguing about this in the US for my whole life, and I’m not young. At this point it should be obvious neither of the two faces of our government has any interest in doing anything more about guns than using the topic as a wedge to divide us and as a source of campaign funding. So you want to ban guns. Is that the hill you want your children to die on? How about instead of insisting that’s the only way, we enact a solution that keeps kids alive and that both the red and blue team can agree on, like, say, mandatory armed guards (a paid job, not volunteers) at school entrances. Is it in conflict with our ideal vision of a peaceful society? Maybe, but it works. Other countries have done it and it stopped school shootings entirely.

    Edit: I know it’s not the best solution, but we can’t seem to get to the best solution. So would you rather insist a ban is the only way and continue fighting? Or would you rather find a middle path and keep children alive?

    • gressen
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think the two-party system you’ve got there has got you by the balls. No offence.