There are some areas of your piece, Michael, that I wholeheartedly agree with. Unfortunately, even more that I don’t. I don’t like your appeal to partisanship. And you cite mental-health studies that are entirely flawed because they’re based on diagnoses. 1/
-
So citing data that people with mental-health diagnoses (more likely to be women, less likely to be sociopaths) are more likely to be victims rather than perpetrators, as if to counter the claim that mass shooters are mentally ill, is just wrong. They’re *definitely* ill. 4/
The only useful data is to isolate the potentially violent mental illnesses, and combinations of mental illnesses, not lump everybody together. I have ADHD. I’m not dangerous as a result. And of course Republicans don’t want to fix things. Neither party does. 5/
-
-
Which *should* be an indicator when one party is pushing gun control and *ignoring* things like Universal Healthcare, that perhaps what they’re proposing is *also* not a legitimate way to address the problem. Because that’s not what they do. 6/
-
Laws aren’t magic. Alinsky said we must deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it were. As it is, there are far, far too many guns to hope that regulation would curb gun violence. (People who *are* problems, unlike you, will get guns. Period.) 7/
- Pokaż odpowiedzi
Nowa rozmowa -
Wydaje się, że ładowanie zajmuje dużo czasu.
Twitter jest przeciążony lub wystąpił chwilowy problem. Spróbuj ponownie lub sprawdź status Twittera, aby uzyskać więcej informacji.