While true that seems to be more a semantic discussion in the context of school deaths.Because legally, an 18 year old is an adult.
So if I had said, ‘leading cause of death for students’ you would count 18 year olds?
While true that seems to be more a semantic discussion in the context of school deaths.Because legally, an 18 year old is an adult.
What is untrue in my statement?Sorry you feel that way because it's untrue. All need to be addressed but instead of juggling 10 balls at one time I just want to juggle 1 and if we solve the problems with that 1 ball, perhaps the means of which we solved that problem can be used on some of the other balls.
You've been given the answer multiple times and you haven't embraced it. So what are YOU thinking we should do to limit access to firearms by "only a small group for a short period of time"?One million percent (if that was a thing) but the American people don't want to talk about that. They want to talk about limiting firearms to everyone. I'm talking about potentially limiting firearms only to a small group and possibly for a short period of time.
I would ask....what are "students"?While true that seems to be more a semantic discussion in the context of school deaths.
So if I had said, ‘leading cause of death for students’ you would count 18 year olds?
I'm actually onboard with your position of involuntary commitment as a possibility. It just doesn't appear that many agree.You've been given the answer multiple times and you haven't embraced it. So what are YOU thinking we should do to limit access to firearms by "only a small group for a short period of time"?
Dude, I just got online today.....chill.You haven’t answered my question. What did I say that was untrue?
for the sake of this discussion, students could be those enrolled in an educational environment at the time of the shooting, perhaps?I would ask....what are "students"?
Enter your email address to join: