But why is that acceptable? They’re either dangerous or they’re not. Removing their guns doesn’t remove their ability to do harm. It only removes one specific method. How are we arriving at the point of taking their guns if not via a conviction in a court of law?
Literally everyone is a potential harm to others regardless of if guns are involved. You’re talking about delving into massive gray areas and applying black-and-white logic to them. Someone with anger issues shouldn’t have a gun, but they shouldn’t be in prison either. Same deal with people with mental health issues and children. No one should have a gun imo, but confiscating them on a case-by-case basis is a better solution than the jack shit some groups would prefer to do, and it shouldn’t only happen in criminal cases.
There is a big difference between “anger issues” and having demonstrated that you have so little control of yourself when you’re angry that you assault/murder someone. Those in the second category should not be allowed to go about unsupervised until they get their shit together. I’d say the same thing about children and people with mental health issues that prevent them from being responsible for themselves. I’m not saying control isn’t appropriate here. I’m saying it’s not sufficient.
I actually wasn’t referring to this case when I mentioned anger issues. I used it as an example of a common trait that a person can have while also wielding a weapon, which is insane to allow. Obviously someone who demonstrates the capacity to harm others shouldn’t have firearms either. But it shouldn’t even need to get that far to begin with. Sounds like we agree on this point.
Well there’s a spectrum to anger issues. I have anger issues but I’m not violent or even verbally abusive. I keep it below the surface. I’m just almost constantly pissed off and have a hard time shutting it down.
Because there is a greater threshold of due process needed to imprison someone (like a conviction in court of law) rather than disarming them.
But why is that acceptable? They’re either dangerous or they’re not. Removing their guns doesn’t remove their ability to do harm. It only removes one specific method. How are we arriving at the point of taking their guns if not via a conviction in a court of law?
Literally everyone is a potential harm to others regardless of if guns are involved. You’re talking about delving into massive gray areas and applying black-and-white logic to them. Someone with anger issues shouldn’t have a gun, but they shouldn’t be in prison either. Same deal with people with mental health issues and children. No one should have a gun imo, but confiscating them on a case-by-case basis is a better solution than the jack shit some groups would prefer to do, and it shouldn’t only happen in criminal cases.
There is a big difference between “anger issues” and having demonstrated that you have so little control of yourself when you’re angry that you assault/murder someone. Those in the second category should not be allowed to go about unsupervised until they get their shit together. I’d say the same thing about children and people with mental health issues that prevent them from being responsible for themselves. I’m not saying control isn’t appropriate here. I’m saying it’s not sufficient.
I actually wasn’t referring to this case when I mentioned anger issues. I used it as an example of a common trait that a person can have while also wielding a weapon, which is insane to allow. Obviously someone who demonstrates the capacity to harm others shouldn’t have firearms either. But it shouldn’t even need to get that far to begin with. Sounds like we agree on this point.
Well there’s a spectrum to anger issues. I have anger issues but I’m not violent or even verbally abusive. I keep it below the surface. I’m just almost constantly pissed off and have a hard time shutting it down.