It wasn’t about restrictions at all. The invite was framed like this:
“You want to learn about, discuss, and contribute to proposals for reducing violence and increasing protective measures as it relates to guns, crime, mental health, and public safety.”
Those were the desired outcomes of the debate. I’m curious where you saw the appeal to emotions. And at the same time, point out that your reply also has quite a bit of emotion in it… and that’s not a bad thing. It’s not possible to separate emotion and discussion… we are talking about this because we care about the results.
That said, I would also love to hear your take on the right way to frame this discussion in a way that both sides could willingly participate in a fruitful way.