Send me bad puns. Good puns welcome too.
I mean obviously, but with popular will you’ll want everything to give your cause an edge—hence the guns. It’s possible to have popular will and still fail, so factors that give the rebellion (or just plain old resistance, see: Black Panthers) an edge are going to be necessary. In recent history, the Houthis definitely benefited from having guns when they rebelled against the then-government.
Well that’s one hell of a non-sequitur. To make a sweeping generalization, it’s not the guns’ fault that Americans are cowards.
So just like regular water then.
I mean the US is too lax with access to guns, but they also have many other problems that lead to this. I mean it’s telling that mass shootings don’t really happen anywhere else, even in places with effectively no gun control.
Because there’s no political or popular will to do anything about it. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink; that doesn’t mean water is useless.
I mean, if there’s bribing going on there’s no guarantee it’s Messi doing it. Given his long career and the fact he’s (as far as I hear; I don’t watch football) the only one not playing like a thug, I’d say it’s much more likely someone is bribing them for him.
Wow, didn’t expect to see Clevatess here.
You can’t assume a correlation from one data point. If it’s the guns, then that’ll show up in data from other countries too. When’s the last time you heard of a mass shooting in Yemen?