Mental Illness is not to blame for gun violence

LV426 said:
I'm not sure where it says I have to be terrorized while I live my life.

In fact, we are guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which I cannot do if I'm being terrorized daily into accepting an unreasonable reality that I could be a victim of a "responsible gun owner" who decided that day to not be responsible any more.

Not sure what that has to do with being an "American", and quite frankly my dude, that is terrorism.

You're using gun violence to terrorize me into accepting a reality where it is inevitable.

So if it's inevitable that I will be a victim of a "responsible gun owner" at some point, then isn't it reasonable for me to not want there to be any "responsible gun owners" who will make me a victim?
Click to expand...

But we've been over this, LV.

Americans are unique in all of the world in that being a citizen in good standing means that you're entitled to own and bear firearms.
I didn't write that before you blame me. It was added in 1791.

There are procedures to amend the constitution but good luck. When we're this polarized, the process is useless.

Whether we like it or not, then, as Americans, guns are part of our life. We can't do shit about it.

Think of it this way.
Would you rather be walking at night and some thug opens you up from throat to balls with a straight razor and lets you bleed out
or would you rather take one in the head and never know a thing?

Or else imagine this.
You walk up to a trumpanzee, put your .44 magnum revolver to his head, and suddenly--headless trumpanzee!!!
I'm not saying you have to actually do it.
Just thinking about helps you fall asleep at night.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Americans are unique in all of the world in that being a citizen in good standing means that you're entitled to own and bear firearms.
I didn't write that before you blame me. It was added in 1791..
Click to expand...

The idea that owning a gun is a right for every American is a fairly new legal concept to this century.

Historically, that hasn't been the case.

And if we are going to be originalist about this, then the right to own a firearm must then only be applied to the firearms that were available at the time it was written.

So you can't argue on the one hand that the Founders intended everyone to have a right to a gun, but then argue on the other hand that intent was forward-looking and is applied to weapons invented 200 years later.

Basically, you can't pick and choose what originalism is...it either is all originalist, or none of it is.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Think of it this way.
Would you rather be walking at night and some thug opens you up from throat to balls with a straight razor and lets you bleed out
or would you rather take one in the head and never know a thing?.
Click to expand...

OK, so first of all, you're trying to terrorize me into reaching the conclusion you want me to come to, so let's make sure we both know what you're doing here because I don't appreciate it.

So maybe we improve the economy enough through other means so that criminal doesn't have the desperation to commit that crime in the first place...or they were evaluated by a mental health professional who got them the treatment and medication they needed, so they wouldn't go out and commit this act of violence.

You're thinking about this very superficially and are not weighing the larger questions and issues here.

Crime is intrinsically linked to the economy...so if the economy is doing well, crime declines because there aren't as many desperate people.

In your scenario here, the only reason someone would slice me with a razor is because that person is mentally ill...and if we had universal health care, that person would likely be getting treatment and medication so they don't go out and look for people to harm.

The gun or razor or whatever isn't a factor in any of this, and is just a convenient distraction from the larger social issues at stake.
 
LV426 said:
The idea that owning a gun is a right for every American is a fairly new legal concept to this century.

Historically, that hasn't been the case.

And if we are going to be originalist about this, then the right to own a firearm must then only be applied to the firearms that were available at the time it was written.

So you can't argue on the one hand that the Founders intended everyone to have a right to a gun, but then argue on the other hand that intent was forward-looking and is applied to weapons invented 200 years later.

Basically, you can't pick and choose what originalism is...it either is all originalist, or none of it is.
Click to expand...

I'm a partitionist, LV, and don't think much of the constitution at all.
I'm just giving an assessment, without caring about it too much one way or the other, that whether we like firearms or not, we're probably going to have them either way.

If you're afraid of gun violence, you're living in the wrong country.

I'm not afraid of gun violence because I've lived it--
after a while in Vietnam, you don't give a shit either way whether you live or die--
just get it the fuck over with. If you're very lucky, you become human again when you get home,
but you're never afraid again.

But I believe in universal health care and strong labor unions like you believe in banning guns.
I'm probably living in the wrong country too.

But Scandinavia isn't waiting for us with open arms.
We're stuck here.
 
LV426 said:
What point do you think was proven?

Because all I see is you running from the accountability of your own position.
Click to expand...

Don't worry about it. Either a person gets it or they don't.

It's not like you and I haven't discussed this before. Unlike you, I'm not obsessively compelled to write multiple posts of the same shit for every post a person makes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top