• @Pogbom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    810 months ago

    Addressing any of the points being made to you would be a great start. The first comment that you called shallow was a pretty good summary of why people support strict gun control, even if it was said sarcastically.

    • Melllvar
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -2
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Their point is that there are accidental and intentional, even mass, shootings. I don’t dispute this. I’m not even against reasonable gun control laws.

      But this was supposed to be a discussion about understanding an American perspective. Not sarcastically deriding any attempt to do so.

      • @Pogbom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        210 months ago

        So then it wasn’t shallow and dismissive at all, you just didn’t appreciate the delivery. The points they made were perfectly valid and, ironically, calling them shallow and dismissing was itself shallow and dismissive. It just seems more like you used a bad analogy but can’t take the criticism.

        • Melllvar
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -310 months ago

          Except this isn’t a debate on gun control.

          • @Pogbom@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            310 months ago

            I’m so confused… you responded to a comment about guns and made an analogy for gun control.

            • Melllvar
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -210 months ago

              What is something that makes no sense to Europeans?

              That whole gun thing

              It’s analogous to modern encryption law controversies //<–me

              If you want to understand why it’s so hard to pass strong gun laws in the USA, then reasoning by analogy to the contemporary issue of strong crypto may prove helpful.