This otherwise great article is interrupted by a native ad in favor of gun control in the US.
While that might be a worthwhile goal as well, I do not get the need for both sides to cram it into so many unrelated pieces.
While that might be a worthwhile goal as well, I do not get the need for both sides to cram it into so many unrelated pieces.
I understand that people think about that as a technical problem (people hurt through weapons, therefore decrease availability - problem solved) however this is not solving the problem at all:
You wouldn't want a society of violent people who just never got the chance to hurt others either.
The technicality of decreasing the availability of weapons (which, as said, might as well be valid) feels so out of place in the article since the rest of it is actually about culture.
It appears to me that the author points at a cultural problm and then interrupts everything to feature this US gun thing.