Hmm…🤔I can’t see the logic in your statements and its quite possible that you have misread my article on the subject🤨. I am disappointed that you think I “don’t realize that kids are the ones doing the killing”. This is a blanket statement that reduces and attempts to isolate this controversial and contentious issue to just said kids🤨.
I am going to only name a few instances that seem to always fade from the collective memory of those who only consider the part and not the whole of discussing societal ills. This would be a tedious exercise to list all the so-called adults who just as much do the killing. Stephen Paddock, 64, is a grown up who should know better not to commit mass murder in the Las Vegas shooting on Oct 1, 2017 where 58 died. Omar Mateen, is another grown up who killed 49 in the Orlando nightclub shooting on June 12, 2016. Married couple. Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, killed 14 in San Bernardino, on December 2, 2015. 41-year old James Huberty shot and killed 21 people in San Ysidro at a McDonalds restaurant.
I would be more mindful not to add more toxins into an already toxic culture of gun violence with your hasty generalization which apparently is based on your irrelevant belief of an opinion I did not suggest. But since you brought it up. How do you know that outlawing guns would not address this? Are you basing that on the countries that do have much stricter gun control laws? Because if you are then you would be statistically and empirically wrong with that notion. I can’t conjure up any plausible logic to what you could be basing your rationale and defensive posturing on.
Furthermore, I have neither inferred nor stated that outlawing guns will solve this controversy in the absurd entirety that defensive gun enthusiasts would and like to advise. The notion you presented that cynically and antagonistically suggests that outlawing guns would address the issue is a weak argument and that expectation would be outlandish in a country that has socioeconomically been saturated with guns for centuries under false pretenses. My article spoke about the disturbing and unintellectual manner of attributing gun violence to simply being a mental illness as opposed to being something indisputably evil.
There is this absurd moral hazard being inspired with this line of reasoning too.
We can, and have, mitigated deadly consequences in many other instances of civil society by simply putting some skin in the game. We can certainly apply this to gun ownership and reduce the moral hazard of gun ownership and stockpiling of ammunition under the 2nd amendment. Example, most would agree that not any and everybody should be allowed to perform surgery without credential or qualification, same with pilots, same with drivers of automobiles, etc., and the same can be said with gun advocates or gun enthusiasts.
Guns can be used as a dangerous weapon. It doesn’t require much nor is there much in the way of barriers to weaponizing them because it is by design, first and foremost a weapon, in and of itself. Addressing this issue with cynicism — insinuating that outlawing guns would eradicate gun violence and the carnage it produces— when we need to educate, regulate and legitimate its use for accountability and safety is completely hypocritical. And this false sense of security offered along with the over dramatic usage for defense inspires this moral hazard.
No one can predict who will kill.
The profile of a mass shooter prior to being a mass shooter is difficult to pinpoint with accuracy because it involves a predictability that is impossible to achieve and no precise algorithm can solve — legally. There is profound fluidity in the human transitory experience and the fairly consistent profile of risk factors like anger, delusional paranoia, and low self-esteem, are inherent to that experience. We all experience perceivably awful emotions from time to to time, generally in response to certain stimuli. Whether they are fleeting or become lasting adds to the complexity, however, making it so easy to act on these irrational factors with the accessibility of guns presents a node of opportunity that makes it dangerously actionable which obfuscates matters further by endangering the innocent lives of so many others in an instance of time that it takes to merely react.
But this over reliance on guns as an equalizer or as un unfettered right, even though we have a law enforcement apparatus in place, inspires this moral hazard.
Most rational people would agree that the open accessibility of guns does nothing to contribute to constructive ways of dealing with depression, anger, and low self-esteem. It actually contributes in ways that are rather destructive based on actual results. And therein lies the moral hazard.😕😑