First and foremost, Twitter is a lousy medium for discussing something as nuanced as firearm ownership control (let's call it what it is; "gun control" is shorter, but less accurate). Even with 280 characters, it's just not enough proverbial skin.
-
Outside of the people who are simply schizophrenic and hearing voices, these people were driven to such a brink that they felt that their only remaining option was to hurt others, and then themselves. We should be asking ourselves why that is. We should be helping them.
A ban on firearm ownership in response to a tragedy is like proposing restrictions on bridge height in response to a wave of bridge-jump suicides. It is a heartless, soulless, band-aid that solves the immediate problem, but still leaves the pained people to fend for themselves.
-
-
It brings tears to my eyes to write that. I'm literally crying. But that's what it amounts to: if you're hurting, if you're in pain, people don't care about you, until you inflict that pain on others. Then people debate, not about your pain, but how to stop you from spreading it.
-
That is why, ultimately, I feel that while firearm ownership control is something that the US could benefit from statistically, mental health care reform is something that the US could benefit from socially. And anyone with a heart should be much more concerned with the latter.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.