Having said that, the primary issue comes down to how ingrained firearm ownership is in the US. People love to point to other countries that successfully banned unlicensed firearm ownership, but those countries didn't literally have firearm ownership as a founding principle.
-
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.
-
Anyway, I hope that I've managed to convey some insight into the myriad reasons as to why the US is unfortunately unique in terms of its problems with firearm ownership and firearm ownership control.
- 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.