It might partially solve for it, by reducing severity of these acts, but guns are really just a means to violence. There are plenty of other ways to enact violence if that's what you want to do.

Because the solutions look different.

I suppose the British considered them to be rebels, insurrectionists, or maybe even terrorists. It's all a matter of perspective isn't it?

That's crazy, and now in order to remain competitive and get workers, other businesses will also need to raise their pay. Capitalism.

Mass shootings weren't even defined before. We didn't talk about them because they weren't tracked. Even now the definition of mass shooting isn't settled, with some definitions having about a dozen per year, and others having about 2 per day.

Glad we can finally get back to hating big pharma. They are a bunch of greedy opportunists, and always were.

Yes, it's a way to move forward with incomplete knowledge, when you need to make assumptions regardless of which theory you go with. There will always be an asterisk by theories or decisions made with this method, because one of more of the assumptions themselves could later turn out to be incorrect, thereby invalidating your decision. Occams razor is very misunderstood and used or quoted incorrectly all the time.

Gotta go with "skate or die: bad n rad"

Maybe I'm not understanding your comment, but in certain contexts, gender identity is not relevant but biological sex IS, such as in treatment or early diagnosis of cancers that are specific to one sex or the other. Hospitals need to be able to communicate verbally and in email or written correspondence about these things, but if language is obfuscated to the point where it is not clear what that individual's risks are (based on their sex), then it is only that individual who will be worse off for it. This point doesn't need to be extrapolated to larger contexts for political power, but it should also not be ignored because of possible implications to larger gender identity questions.

Stoicism teaches that you should strive for virtue, but cannot expect any particular outcome. You can't have your happiness and contentment depend on factors outside your control, or you will inevitably be unhappy. Try to be virtuous, try to do the right thing for the right reasons, and if the outcomes are not what you hoped for, then at least you tried. Stoic virtues are wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance.

Other than political gain for one team or the other, what is the argument for expanding the supreme Court?

I vowed to be done with it when it became subscription based, and now here I am. Kind of glad actually, been looking for an excuse for years as the site became more and more stale, unoriginal, and politics began to overwhelm everything. Maybe this is just how it has to be every decade or so.