You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
1 point
*

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?

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points
*

We dont like the two party system. Our democracy is broken. Dont need some smug outsider telling us what we already know. Thanks, though.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Our two party, first past the post system is fucking awful.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*

No offence taken. You’re right. And one of the few things the two parties cooperate on is working to insure it never changes.

permalink
report
parent
reply

The Onion

!theonion@midwest.social

Create post

The Onion

A place to share and discuss stories from The Onion, Clickhole, and other satire.

Great Satire Writing:

Community stats

  • 5.7K

    Monthly active users

  • 1K

    Posts

  • 14K

    Comments