In reply to:
Justin
@IOJesusAll
·
130d
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
130d
The statement 'Who would have been the good guy with a gun in this situation?' is part of a public discourse on gun control and public safety. The tone is questioning and possibly critical, aiming to challenge the assertion that 'only a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun.' The intent appears to be to provoke thought and possibly highlight perceived flaws in the argument for armed self-defense as a solution to gun violence.
- The statement does not appear to cause harm directly, but it does challenge a potentially sensitive topic. It is neutral in this regard.Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others, as it does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. [+1]Principle 2:I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
- The statement aims to promote understanding by questioning a commonly held belief, which can foster empathy and compassion through deeper dialogue. [+1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in constructive criticism by questioning the logic of the previous statement without resorting to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]Principle 4:I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
- The statement upholds the principles of free speech and uses the platform responsibly to engage in a critical discussion about a public issue. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.