Gun ownership itself is a slight mental illness

I'm not opposed to the ideology, like I had some choice, no, I just flat-out can't see it.

"Reverse" the conditions of your argument.

 

Haha, no.

What's easy is that someone becomes driven to take a life - that's not so hard to grasp - we've all been close or we haven't lived - THEN they look for ways they could accomplish it. It doesn't work any other way.

 

I don't believe that it's this big mental breakdown though.

It's because the gun is there that the person is able to act on their "problem"/"insanity"/"whatever you want here ____". It doesn't happen without the gun. At least not in this country.

Sure we have like one vehicle attack or something - there was one in Isla Vista near here (less than a hundred miles) in recent memory. But it's nowhere near as dangerous as the mass shootings. The problem is dozens of lives are being forfeited - and for what?! so someone can feel like they own a piece of everyone's life?! It's insane! Gun ownership can change dramatically for all I care...

 

I can see that you are emotionally involved in this issue. So let me ask you a question, let's say that all the guns in the world were melted down and made into
plow shears, do you really think no more lives will be lost, lives destroyed? As I pointed out in an earlier post, a person does not need a gun to kill hundreds if not thousands of people. The problem is not guns but the human drive to kill, that is what needs to be addressed if we are ever going stop lives being lost and destroyed.

 

and that's not to say that murder in general isn't an issue. It's a huge issue and one that needs to be discussed. But I feel like drawing lines with the social problem that is mass shootings is a good place to start saying no to murder. If we ever find a way around that, we'll have begun to address the underlying issue that someone pointed to earlier.

 

I was just saying that I think murder is problematic in and of itself; and guns are partially to blame, but they're not the only murder weapon. Right now, we ought to look at murder by gun more generally to show that, yes that's a problem. I think the bigger problem is mass shootings. We have to take baby steps because of the dumb second amendment. But if that were gone, I wouldn't shed a tear.

If guns went the way of the dodo bird I would celebrate.

 

You're not making any sense to me. You can't fathom that people fantasize about hurting other people? That's like, a major theme underlying serial killers. It begins with fantasy until they decide to make it a reality.

I don't think anything really causes some people to just be bad apples. Maybe that's what you disagree with. I think a lot of people are just born selfish and self-centered. Those are the ones you've really got to look out for. Especially if they've got nothing else really going for them, but are still just self-centered for no apparent reason.

I still don't know what you mean by "reversing" the conditions of my argument. My argument is just that some people are going to fantasize about murder if they have access to guns, and a certain number of them are going to carry out these fantasies to fruition. Community outreach isn't going to help. There are just bad seeds.

We need to limit these people's access to guns while minimalizing the extent to which we restrict responsible gun owners' access to guns. Assault weapons should just be a no-no, in my opinion. But the real loopy gun owners are fairly easy to spot.

 

Okay, I'll keep playing. There is a difference between an assault rifle and an assault STYLE rifle. An assault rifle has a select-fire option. An assault STYLE rifle does not have a select-fire option. If a rifle is not select-fire, then it is called a semiautomatic rifle, and NOT an assault rifle.

So, if you believe that a semiautomatic rifle is an assault rifle by virtue of its appearance and despite its lack of select-fire capability, then you believe that style equals function. But style does not equal function.

You claim that you obey authority when it is legitimate. The problem with your "legitimate" authority in this case is that it shares your skewed view that style equals function. The authority in my state does not confuse style and function.

 

Maybe gun owners should all have to undergo a psychological evaluation before they can own a gun, and then a psychiatrist can recommend whether they should be allowed or not.

 

As I pointed out earlier; 9/11, about 3000 dead happened without a gun. Oklahoma City, over 600 dead happened without a gun. Blaming it all on guns is easy but it is just a way to divert us from the real problems we have. Pass a law against guns and hey, everything is all better, at least until the next pressure cooker bombs go off at a local gathering.

 

One vehicle attack or something?
Vehicle-ramming attack - Wikipedia

 

The difference between those incidents and our gun incidents is that those incidents are politically motivated. Those were incidents in which someone had a real agenda that they were willing to work towards to achieve an end. With guns, people just pick one up and start shooting. Two totally different underlying problems.

 

And next perhaps we should all "undergo a psychological evaluation" before we can avail ourselves of any of the rights described in the bill of rights

 

I suggest you read it before you comment seeing as there is a large section there called "List of non-terrorist incidents".

 

You're not making any sense.

 

I should read "it?" What is it?