That’s been my experience too. In small towns, people talk and collaborate more with their neighbors and other residents of the town on matters that urban residents tend to be rigid with. It’s like small-town people focus on the interpersonal relationship while urban people focus on rules and expectations. There’s a sociological model that discusses it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemeinschaft_and_Gesellschaft

Schrodinger’s and Murphy’s guns independently are good foundational principles for firearms safety.

hmmmm 🤔

Oof, get ready for the backlash. I think that in summary, what you’re going to receive is anger about the belief that a group of people based on ethnicity/nationality can expel or eradicate another group from their lands because the initial group supposedly used to live there millennia ago and experienced a recent genocide attempt elsewhere. From the perspective of an outsider, it seems like one group of people (i.e. Jewish) believe they can and have the mandate to genocide another group that had nothing to do with the genocide to avoid their own genocide that is no longer a threat. Imagine if Native Americans started genociding European Americans rn, particularly bombing schools and hospitals. That’s what it would look like, except the Native Americans were here for millennia, were dominant much more recently depending on the specific location, and suffered a much much more extensive genocide over centuries.

Basically, the universal moral code that is being violated is that no one no matter what has the right to genocide anyone. There is no exception to that rule. Not culture, ethnicity, religion, or even genocide. In fact, it seems hypocritical to commit the genocide of a group of people that had absolutely nothing to do with the initial genocide while claiming that genocide is horrible. It’s like saying, “John killed my child, so I get to kill Jenny’s child.” What?? No, you don’t get to kill anyone.