Is your mental state so fragile you could see yourself getting violent with strangers one day?

No. I’m sure nearly every shooter would have responded the same—right up until they started killing people that is.

Likewise, if you could go back in time and survey the parent of every kid who died from accidentally firing his/her parent’s firearm the day before the accident and ask “is your family safer with a firearm in the house?” I suspect that they would universally agree that they were.

I am a redhead with a temper, and my family was military for generations. I was raised to never touch a gun in anger or for any reason other than defending myself or our property/farm.

Of course not, and you should just take my word for it, because I am so damn trustworthy and would never ever lie, pinky promise, and, due to my clairvoyance, I can also guarantee that my mental state will never change.

The tenor after every rampage is always the same:
“He was such a nice kid”.
“He would never have harmed a fly”.
“No one could have known he would have volunteered to guard a camp, watching 6 million people get gassed.”

You forgot he was a nice quite kid.^

Is your mental state so fragile that you see yourself throwing a grenade at a school bus? Do you want all grenades banned in case you just snap one day? Is your mental state that fragile?

always with the extremes,civilians can’t legally own grenades,or a lot of other military weapons, I am surprised you didn’t just say shoulder fired tank missile.

^ You haven’t been able to lucidly explain why this is extreme. You argue that guns are legal, so they should be legal. See where this is going?

Explain to me why you should have the right to own a gun, and it invariably will be logic that supports my right to own grenades and rocket launchers.

@SQUEEKY2
They are brought up, because they fall under the same category. Clearly, because of your taking exception to those examples, you do not think they should be accessible to ordinary people.
Why not? And why do those reasons not apply to “lesser” armaments?

Because they are not firearms to begin with,they are military grade explosives.
Just like no civilian should own one of these..
https://youtu.be/33jsjK8ig08

I have seen a number of deaths caused by cars that can do 4times the speed limit, then I guess no one should own super fast cars?

@SQUEEKY2: “Because they are not firearms to begin with,they are military grade explosives.”

Go on. Make the case that I shouldn’t own these types of weapons.

You don’t have the proper training to use them safely,and you tell me what sporting need would anyone have for that type of weapon?

@SQUEEKY2
So are most of the firearms in contention.
Most, if not all of them, were developed specifically with the goal in mind to get a military contract. They were developed for the battlefield.
I could easily make the argument, and no doubt plenty of pro-gun advocates have already made, that in order to ensure that you can topple a “tyrannical” government, you need to have force-parity with the military, and you therefore must have access to all the weaponry a modern military has available.

@SQUEEKY2: “You don’t have the proper training to use them safely,and you tell me what sporting need would anyone have for that type of weapon?”

So you support proper training as a requirement to own grenades? Sounds reasonable.

“Sporting” with a gun and “sporting” with grenades are equally absurd and embarrassing. I only use grenades on my own property and when I really need them. Why do you have a problem with this? I’m highly trained and have respect for the weapon.

Why do you feel that your gun is different?

Make the case that I shouldn’t own grenades, etc.

@SQUEEKY2 This is where you are in error: ”...No one should own a gun in case they one just snap and go on a shooting spree.”

Very few people should own gun because the only purpose of a gun is to kill.

Fine if you pass all the safety courses and prove you have a reason to have the grenade then go for it,really expensive for just a single use.
Firearms were developed many years ago ,for battle but they have evolved ,my trap shotgun would be sub useless on any battle field.
Same for my silhouette target revolver, or my target rifle .
Can they kill of course but they were not produced for that.
But anti-gunners refuse to see that.
I will say that weapons designed for war should stay in the hands of the military,as for the evil AR15 then which is an expensive rifle then get the Government to buy them back and get AR to stop making them for civilian use.

@hat: “Explain to me why you should have the right to own a gun, and it invariably will be logic that supports my right to own grenades and rocket launchers.”

@SQUEEKY2: “Fine if you pass all the safety courses and prove you have a reason to have the grenade then go for it,really expensive for just a single use.”

@zenvelo that is a very narrow point of view.
Hunting done properly is a fine way manage wild life heards.
There are shooting sports in the olympics,and those firearms were not made for combat.

Firearms have evolved just as the cell phone has.

No, I’m not concerned that I would snap and kill a bunch of random people. I am far more likely to punch a stranger who pisses me off, but even that is not too likely.

I am fine with people owning guns. As I’ve stated before, I think mass killings are less about guns than about societal conditions alienating people to such an extent that they think the only option they have is killing a bunch of people.

NICE ANSWER @Demosthenes .

@SQUEEKY2 – You’ve already admitted that there is no “extreme” here, and that your case for owning guns is the same case that can be made for grenades, rocket launchers, etc.

So, why don’t you just say, “I like my gun!” and leave it at that. You like guns and feel threatened that “anti-gunners” (whatever that means) don’t understand your toy and desire to make sure everyone has the right to own one or ten.

Your question was about mental states and fragility, but you’ve given that up and just want to rephrase your love of guns. Just own that position.

I have no problem saying I like guns,not at all.
I like the craftsman ship that goes into making a fine firearm.
I like different shooting sports.
I have shot military style guns, but have no use for them in my shooting life.
NOW @hat you tell me why no one should own a gun.
And do not compare all firearm owners to a sick 18 year old that shot up a school.

@SQUEEKY2: “NOW @hat you tell me why no one should own a gun.”

Now that we agree that we should all have the right to own pistols, rifles, grenades, tanks, etc, maybe we can work through why someone would be opposed to us owning such things. I’ll give it a shot. I’ll use “weapon” here to mean anything above that we agree should be legal.

What if the societal costs of weapons is too great? Isn’t the role of a society to balance individual rights with societal costs? If a society decides that it isn’t functioning well with an abundance of weapons, wouldn’t it make sense that some people question whether the individual right to play with these weapons is too costly?

I don’t understand this fear on the part of gun enthusiasts that their hobby will be outlawed and their weaponry confiscated. Again, considering the quantities here and the fact that they apparently NEVER stop growing, enforcement of such measures would be equivalent to outlawing sex, and as a practical matter, all but unenforcible. As a practical matter, the guns, like sex, would merely disappear from public display, exactly as the vast majority have already. What’s the big deal?

You’re getting caught up in extremist views and I know you’re smarter than that.

It’s disingenuous to assume everyone wants all guns to disappear.

Nice troll bait though.

My mental state isn’t fragile. It isn’t so anxious either that I must have a weapon to defend myself with at all times.

@HP Because Hitler disarmed Jews then killed them all.

Very well put, @Blackberry.

No.

Then why can’t we use the same theory with other things as well?
For one because some abuse alcohol either drinking and driving,or hitting their spouse no one should have alcohol right?
Or some can’t drive their fast cars safely,no one should be able to own a fast car,because it’s to costly for society?

@SQUEEKY2 You want to ban fast cars? Good idea, but that is not what I see being discussed. How about licensing and insuring guns the same way cars are licensed and insured?

@zenvelo I have no problem with that.
Here in Canada all hand guns must be registered with the Government.

@KNOWITALL Hitler had no need to disarm anyone. And I believe the current pro gun argument is that the Jews were easily rounded up because guns were so scant in the population overall as to be negligible. Trump is the indication that we may soon be in for our own fascist oligarch, which is exactly why Nazis have crawled out of the cracks to march in our streets in broad daylight. Those who insist that Trump is not a racist apparently don’t realize that REAL Nazis know one when they see one. But the record setting spree over this past weekend points toward levels of upcoming carnage that most of us now are unable to appreciate. And gun sales spike with every incident.

@SQUEEKY2 You do realize of course that not all handguns ARE registered with the government. And you folks being right next to us, are going to wind up in the boat with us. And exactly as with us, you will not realize exactly which boat you are in until it is too late.

@SQUEEKY2 Here I can just give you one and there’s no tracking at all except voluntary, or conceal and carry.

@HP Just answering your question, although I doubt many WS use that same example for 2A. We’re on the same side, I think. :)

In answer to the original question, there are several aspects that play into my thinking. First off, if you get so angry you could get violent with a stranger, wouldn’t it be the stranger’s fault? Maybe they said something or did something that was a microaggression to you. Maybe they called you by the wrong pronoun. Never know what could set someone off. But it is never he violent person’s fault. There is always a trigger that is someone’s fault.

The second thought I have is that it is 100% impossible to say you wouldn’t get violent with a stranger. Similarly to my first thought, they might present a serious threat to you or your family. Example: if you and your family were at the store and a stranger came in and began shooting people and one of your family was injured or killed, would you be willing to hurt the shooter? Yes, it is an extreme example, but every day people are able to present danger to other people.

The third thought is that just because you are willing to hurt another human doesn’t always mean your mental state is fragile. Of the two examples I gave above, one of them would indicate a fragile mental state and the other would not.

I can count on one hand all the anti gun people I know who want ALL guns banned. The majority want safety measures in place. They are not in favor of taking all guns away.

Where do you find these people? They are not the majority.

I can’t imagine ever physically hurting a stranger, but I can say I have been to the point of being physically and psychologically enraged by a stranger. I’ll define stranger as someone who is not a friend or family, but can be anyone from total strangers to people like customer service workers, staff at a business, who can be people I’ve met or done a transaction with more than once.

Mass shooters often kill strangers who have done nothing to them, they have literally never met the person. That is beyond my comprehension.

@seawulf575 The first part of your answer can be both ways, yes the stranger could be a real asshole and provoke you to get you mad.
But I think it’s both parties fault,if a stranger is being an asshole walk way don’t be a victim to their provoking .
And was it those kids fault in Texas , that 18 year old shot them down?
The second is more self defense if some one is hurting you or your family no one would fault you for fighting back.

@SQUEEKY2 The point of the first part is that in today’s society, we have created an environment in which people become unhinged over the littlest things. So yes, they are fragile enough that they could trip off line and hurt a stranger. I’d be willing to bet that several of the mass shooters fall into this category.

You are absolutely correct that the proper response when someone is being an asshole is to not engage or engage only in a civilized way. Please see #1 when considering this as the standard of today’s world or not.

It is not the victims fault that they were shot. But I’m pretty certain the shooters did not interact with these victims in any way other than at the end. But we aren’t looking at the victims as the assholes. In #1, the asshole is the person that gets upset over something that is pretty petty and may not even be an intentional slight. That is also the person that might trip offline and hurt a stranger.

The second is, indeed, a self-defense example. But the question was asking if you could see yourself hurting a stranger. The term “fragile” is somewhat variable. What I deem as fragile might not match your opinion. If I am defending myself or my family with deadly force, you might see that as a fragile mental state. I do not, though I could end up hurting/killing someone I don’t know in any way other than that they pose a threat to me.

Like @ImmaKnew, I know so few “anti gunners” that they can be counted on my thumbs. Right after any school shooting, I am anti gun, then I relax.
But your attitude is a lot like that of a former family member of mine. Within weeks of the Sandy Hook massacre (which happened a stone’s throw from me) he sent me an email declaring that the type of weapon used had been deliberately mis-reported by liberals pushing their anti-gun agenda, and that I should really understand the damage this does to the reputations of “responsible gun owners”. He went on in this vein for a bit.

That was his take away from Sandy Hook. Not the slaughtered tiny children, not the crippling grief of families and the community, not the shock of a horrified nation, but the potential damage to the reputations of “responsible gun owners”.

He has no children and lives in BC, you guys should get together and rant about how unfair it all is that you guys in Canada, not subject to our laws, might be negatively affected by these things.

Gosh, it must be so distressing for you. Makes me wonder just how fragile is your mental state on this topic?

That was directed at @SQUEEKY2, not @seawulf575.

We are negatively affected by your laws ,our Federal Government just banned 1,500 types of firearms, and now are trying to figure out how to get them, see we bought each one legally paid taxes on each one,and now they say nope all banned.
They would just love if we just handed them in, right now we can keep them but we can’t use them even on a gun range.
Some are very expensive, so they will have to do some kind of buy back program we hope.
Yes I have one that was banned and no it wasn’t a military style gun.
As for the mass shooting it breaks my heart that some sick shit gunned down children or anyone else for that matter.
And shortly after the public focuses on firearms( they all should be banned , no one should own a gun,guns have one purpose and that is to kill, anyone with access to a gun is a potential mass murderer ) I have a problem with the ease of access to guns,people have to be better vetted to owned a firearm.
That 18year old in Texas couldn’t legally buy a beer, but a gun no problem.
See why I am having a problem @canidmajor ?

@SQUEEKY2 That’s exactly why many red states don’t require registering. If the govt doesn’t know, they can’t come after them.
It’s crazy to me that they want to take your gun(s) who presumably are completely legally registered, stored, and with a legal owner.

@KNOWITALL That is why I keep screaming focus on the people instead,make sure all safety courses have been met, background checks done.
NO ONE wants to see a firearm in the hands of someone that wants to shoot innocent people.

@SQUEEKY2 Agreed. I hope Republicans do the right thing, if they truly represent us and not NRA pay-off’s.

@KNOWITALL “It’s crazy to me that they want to take your gun(s) who presumably are completely legally registered, stored, and with a legal owner.” My ex-FIL once said that of course politicians are anti-gun. If you had been screwing over the public as long as our politicians have been screwing us over, would you want the public armed?