How could one compare the two? They are so different. Climate activists are dangerous criminals that must be stopped at all cost, even if that includes criminalising carrying glue in public. Mass shooters on the other hand are just a fact of life. How would we even try to stop them? By criminalising carrying a firearm in public?
Calling mass shooters a fact of life, implying we can’t ban guns, calling climate activists dangerous criminals. But I’m autistic so I can’t tell if its sarcasm or if you genuinely hold those beliefs.
How could one compare the two? They are so different. Climate activists are dangerous criminals that must be stopped at all cost, even if that includes criminalising carrying glue in public. Mass shooters on the other hand are just a fact of life. How would we even try to stop them? By criminalising carrying a firearm in public?
This is sarcasm right?
What makes you think I was being sarcastic?
Calling mass shooters a fact of life, implying we can’t ban guns, calling climate activists dangerous criminals. But I’m autistic so I can’t tell if its sarcasm or if you genuinely hold those beliefs.
Sorry, I didn’t want to confuse you. My comment was very much sarcastic.
Thanks for the clarity :)