@GabeLakmann @freemo
There were some toots where freemo acknowlegded that there are underlying problems. I'd say the discussion is pretty far off from any useful path, with guns as core topic.

@admitsWrongIfProven @GabeLakmann

The things is i care about what is tbe most usefulnpath, full stop... you seem to care about the dicussion if and only if it frames guns as thr core problem. You literally go in with an incorrect and biased "fact" as a premis. That will never work.

@freemo You really think i do? Or am i misreading this and taking it personal for no reason?

@admitsWrongIfProven im just pointing out what you literally said in the message i responded to.

@freemo Eh, if i stay on-topic, its bad. If i go off-topic by pointing out there is another, more important underlying problem, also bad.

I generally don't see guns as the reason there are problems, but immediately, less guns means less holes in people while the problems are being fixed. Nothing more.

@admitsWrongIfProven except it wasnt really a change in problem. We are addressing the same problem (all the killing) but by requiring a prerequsite of thr dicussion being to frame the same problem but only with sokutions that assune your opinions are correct going in.. its basically "i know im bias but lets have a discussion where we assume my biases are correct".. it isnt bad so much as it will never give you a honest world view if you cant accept the solutions to a problem exist outside your proposed solution.

Less guns means more people dead, thr fact that the shape of the holes change seem like a poor measure of success.

@freemo So maybe the guns are irrelevant, and then you are as wrong as i was :-)

@admitsWrongIfProven My solution to the problem has always been free easy access and normalization of mental health... so id say if the problem has little to do with guns then id be more likely to be right.