Freud may be largely historical, but the concept of projection is not.
Projection is still considered a valid concept in psychology. It, like many concepts in psychology, is overused and misused by people who mistakenly believe they are scoring a point on the internet.
For god’s sake, man, if you want to tell him he’s full of crap, grow a pair and do it. Don’t just weasel around and vaguely imply that some people use something wrong.
On the other hand I don’t see any of those resistance movements abandoning guns and relying solely on their insurgent toolbox weapons.
Just because every job doesn’t require a hammer is no reason for me decide I will never have a use for a hammer.
Question for the gun enthusiasts:
Let’s say we have some way to definitively determine that a person is a potential mass murderer, through testing, magic ball whatever. Does that guy have the right to buy a cache of assault weapons?
We do have a way to check if someone is a potential mass murderer. Check their pulse. If they have one, they are a potential mass murderer. If they don’t, they are safe.
Anyone else notice how manic and unproductive the human mind can be? You can make this about the gun pride, or theory about eternal non violence, or you can make this About who’s stupid and who’s stoopider. . . But what we all have in common, murdering psychos and forum quarrelers alike, is this tricky little mind. With a human perspective and a little dose of “me is more important than you” I bet I can fuck some shit up with OR without a gun. Chew on that, you unbridled spirits, you. Nah. Don’t. Just keep pointing fingers. <3
To take the premise at its face value: If you had a perfect, infallible way of saying something like "this guy has the GHI737 gene, all of whom test psychologically abnormal and who have rates of violence 50x higher than the average; then they would be a candidate for civil commitment, or some lesser restrictions of their freedom as deemed necessary. No right is absolute- you don’t have the right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater*- but there shouldn’t be laws that are the equivalent of requiring everyone in the theater to have their mouths taped shut.
*actually, you do have the right to free speech; and the responsibility of facing the consequences (severe ones) of your actions.
I’d resent having my mouth taped shut, but have no desire at all to own a cache of assault weapons.
False equivalent…
Simply because you happen to not want a gun. Those who do would resent a gun ban as much as you’d resent having your mouth taped shut.
Well, that’s their problem. Sorry, now is not the time to get compassion for the pencil-dicks who are lusting after more & fancier guns for their collections…
The biggest gun collector I know is so fat, he certainly doesn’t have a pencil-dick. More like if you take a typical hot-dog wiener and cut it to maybe three inches in length. “Little finger dick” maybe.
I always laugh when I hear him talk about taking to the woods and fighting tyranny guerrilla-style. Not until the woods have a Quick-E-Mart every hundred yards.
Ah, democracy in action. Stepping on people’s rights is not a problem as long as they’re rights you don’t give a shit about, is that it?
Given that you only need one gun to shoot someone, attacking gun collectors is pretty stupid, and suggests you have no interest in attempting to understand the other side of this at all.
I can’t resist posting the infamous video:
Inner Stickler believes that he IS the high ground.
I think we will change the gun culture similarly to how we changed smoking. Make these gun fetishists who ‘need’ assault weapons look like the sad little weirdos they are. As the GOP sinks into a permanent minority party for scared old white men with guns, they will start to lose their cool factor.
We can still make room for true outdoors people who want firearms for hunting and target shooting, but the ones lining up to buy clips and assault rifles before “Obama takes them” are pretty much the Comic Book Guy with dellusions of being bad ass.
So, all living people are potential mass murderers? That makes no sense at all. The people that feel the need to kill many people in one sitting almost always have multiple weapons, often with high capacity mags. What they show up with is equipment suited to killing many people as quickly as possible. Does a person that collects multiple assault rifles with high capacity mags seem to you to be a person exercising their second amendment right, or a person intent on being able to kill a whole lot of people at once?
Precision assault rifles didn’t exist when this amendment was written. I highly doubt the authors of this meant that every man has a right to own the firepower needed to kill an entire kindergarten full of kids.
Where is the common sense here?
You’re dancing around the issue quite a bit here. I think you’re saying that a certifiable sociopath would be otherwise restricted due to their state of mental health before any gun laws come into play. I doubt anyone would advocate allowing a crazy person access to weaponry of any type. Your analogy about the theater is woefully inept.
The whole “Guns don’t kill people, people do” adage is correct, but it also explains the problem. “People do”. That’s the underlying issue. Guns of all types could be as ubiquitous as frying pans, and if nobody went postal, there would be no problem at all.
I fully understand that the vast majority of gun rights advocates are highly disciplined and trained (almost to a fault) . Many of us know very responsible people that may own a large amount of guns. Those people are not the ones that cause mass murders that drive gun control movements.
If a few bad apples are causing problems, maybe we shouldn’t ban all apples. The NRA is a very powerful force, in lobbying and otherwise. I think that the onus of keeping bad people from getting enough firepower to kill a whole school full of kids lies with the supporters of gun rights, the NRA, etc. Police yourselves. Nobody will be hounding gun owners about gun control when the murder rates drop.
TLDR: Nobody will try to control access to guns if the problem of excessive gun violence is handled by those that advocate free access to guns.
And that, ISTM, is ultimately going to come down to stricter measures on allowing access to guns once they’re already legally owned.
After all, for all the opprobrium heaped on the shooter’s mother (not here necessarily, just what I’ve seen around the interwebs) for having such a kooky survivalist arsenal and for encouraging her son in target practice, the fact remains that those legally owned guns don’t seem to have done any damage in the hands of their legal owner.
If they had been secured from access by anybody who wasn’t the legal owner, including the owner’s son, he might still have committed murder somehow sometime, but it wouldn’t have been such a simple matter of walking to the downstairs closet (or wherever they were kept) and picking up a shooting spree’s worth of firepower.
So it looks like the key to self-policing here is trigger locks and/or gun safes. I realize that there are concerns among many gun owners that some such safety measures are inconvenient and/or ineffective. But it’s not unreasonable to expect people to figure out a way to lock up guns effectively, and to keep them locked up when not in use.
Just as it’s reasonable to require dog owners to keep a dog restrained, because it’s the owner’s responsibility to keep the dog from hurting people, it seems reasonable to say that gun ownership also confers a responsibility to keep your possession from hurting people. So you need to take reasonable precautions to keep other people from obtaining your gun to hurt people with.
Why don’t we just outlaw bad. If outlawing bad assures no bad will ever happen, then that’s the course we should take. Yea?