Hi, thanks for pitching in! As I wrote in another reply, I think Americans and Europeans will be too far apart on this subject to really understand each other. This will probably be my only long reply, as I am starting a new job this week and I think I'll need a break from any other mental activity, so sorry in advance!

the fact that we own them and continue to increase the numbers that we own is one of the most significant things that we can do to keep governments and tyrannical people in check.

I know this goes very deep for US citizens, but as an outsider, I don't really understand this way of thinking. We don't have a massive amount of firearms in the EU and somehow our governments haven't really become any more corrupt or tyrannical than the one in the US. I think that yes, there are plenty of corrupt people in power everywhere, but we tend to look at the 'big, bad government' as one, soulless entity. What we forget is that there are many layers of a great variety of people that make up the government. What makes you think that a few corrupt politicians will be blindly followed by the entirety of the army and/or police force? There are many layers of defense inbetween, in the form of people with brains and thoughts for themselves, before the entirety of a civilization will be under threat from its own goverment. I just don't see how Americans think that this is a big threat. As opposed to the loss of lives of many innocent people thanks to troubled minds getting their hands on a gun so easily. That is an actual threat which has already happened quite a lot. And that threat won't be solved by adding more guns. That threat should be addressed through very rigourous gun laws with many checkups and waiting periods, aswell as periodical checks while someone owns a firearm.

_{How in the world the US will get a hold on all of the guns already in circulation is another question alltogether though...}

A gun will only protect you if you happen to have it on you at the time of a threat, which, either you don't, or you have a civilization where everyone walks around with guns. I would never feel safe in such a civilization, because too many people are stupid, disturbed and/or hotheaded. It's way too risky. I am all for handing well tested and well trained law enforcement the necessary tools to defend citizens, but I think that's where it should end. If they tend to misuse their weapon, look at your hiring policy, training and mental health checks. Don't arm the entire nation. Furthermore, if a deranged person isn't able to get his/her hands on a gun in the first place, there will be one less mass shooting that needs a gun to stop it after many innocent lives have already been lost.

General police officers don't hold guns in my country. Thing is, with so few weapons amongst the general public, they don't need them either. We don't have mass shootings, because a deranged person isn't able to get their hands on guns here. Organized crime might, but they don't go around causing mass shootings.

On the subject of abortion, you say:

Personal choices in what we do with our bodies (abortions, medical procedures, treatments) is absolutely not one of them nor should it ever be. That is up to the person and their care providers.

Then you say:

States have much different demographics and that should influence whether or not something like abortion is allowed.

Those two don't match. It's either up to the person and their care providers, or up to the general public through any level of government, state or otherwise.

I wouldn't ask my wife to ever get an abortion and I would be pissed if she got one and would try to talk her out of it but at the same time it's someone's ability to choose whether or not to have one.

Agreed. It might be a difficult choice for the maybe-future parent(s), but the the ultimate decision is for the owner of the womb it concerns. Not a decision for random bystanders.

Before I wrote this very unnuanced piece, I read about one state deciding that it is a crime to have an abortion from day one. That, to me, is crazy. Sure, I can understand people's point of view about a limit somewhere along the pregnancy and very clever, very scientifical minds can tell you all you need to know about the stages of a clump of cells towards something that resembles a little human towards a tiny human that can take a breath on its own. But in the state of a clump of cells, no one but the woman it concerns should have a final say. She should definitely talk to her partner if he's in the picture. She should definitely talk to a health care professional and anyone she feels she needs to talk to. She should get all the help she needs to make a difficult decision. In no way, however, should the political color of the people around her decide what she can do with her clump of cells. Let alone call her a crimal for doing so.

I agree with you 100% that the oversexualisation and objectification of women in today's society isn't a good thing. Kids should focus on kids stuff and not consume (unrealistic) sexual media content at a young age. However, I think a school is a good, safe environment to start teaching kids about these things and I think the age to start should be the age at which kids tend to come in contact with, think about, or experiment with their sexuality. In today's society, that might be sooner rather than later, but denial won't keep them safe. Teaching them how to respect one another and teaching them about options to be safe while potentially exploring their sexuality just might. Teaching them, in a very broad way, how unrealistic media content is should also be a part of education. It could just help against various mental issues kids face today, aswell as the objectification of women.

Anyway, I wrote too much! Like I said before, I probably won't again, because a new job is mentally taxing enough, but again, thank you for conversing with me! We don't have to agree on everything and I think in this case, we can just be happy that you live in your neck of the woods, while I live in mine. They both seem like a fine fit :-)