Somehow I doubt that every person who has shot someone else is mentally unstable but I understand the distinction you're making. It's still my opinion that if they were less accessible, guns would not be among the top go-to solutions for conflict resolution by those who use them for that purpose and they might be forced to find a better way to deal with things that would be less likely to end in lethal results.
The go-to solution would probably become knives, instead, as they were before guns became so common. I'd much rather be shot than cut. In any event, the intent to kill, maim, and brutalize would not change, and crazy people would remain crazy.
The use of guns as conflict resolution isn't (to my mind) anywhere near as ubiquitous as it's being made out to be. I've seen actual shoot-to-kill gunplay about half a dozen times in my rather rough-and-tumble life. Most people never even see it once.
And, in my experience, it's always been under circumstances where the guy who got shot more or less deserved it.
I don't deny that some people have been shot just walking down the street, and I don't deny that some perfectly innocent people have been shot, but I've never seen either happen. Well, I do know one guy who took a bullet while hunting, but it was from another hunter on the other side of the woods who had missed his deer, but that's not really what we're talking about.
I don't think it happens very often, except in the sorts of situations where that's really the only way it can play out.
I was thinking about gang violence where payback is dealt with by more violence, oftentimes with guns, and in the process far too many innocent lives have been lost from gunshot wounds as well.
Wow!! I didn't know all criminals and such were mentally unstable. That must be why they all get off on temporary insanity, huh?
I tell ya what, along with some damn fine points of the human condition here on the ol' SKMB, you have to all stomach a lot of dumb statements. Mostly when the neocons feel the need to tell us the same crap they have been since the 1780's. We got it, you can all pipe down now. It's still dumb now. The big folks and thinkers are moving forward with or without you.
Please review where a progressive agenda was re-elected last November, as well as a large majority of total congressional votes were cast in favor of said agenda.
You and your old ideas are the minority and will be from now on. Get over it. You can still have a burrito...
Perhaps you are unclear what the term means. A neoconservative (or neocon) is the far right extreme of the political spectrum. It implies they take their philosophy back to the original constructionist roots. A typical conservative would not be one of these as they are often more progressive in thinking and just want fiscal responsibility. The ones who take this to indicate a litany of social and moral stances that are puritanical in substance and are therefore unwavering, make it into a faith rather than an ever evolving set of information and evolved reactions to that information.
Now I am not sure why YOU are taking issue with this as that term was used in relation to the OP here and their neocon ideals about guns and also making blanket statements regarding mental instability.
But to sum it up, that is not a dumb term, nor was it incorrectly used. Therefore I give your assessment two thumbs down because I only have two. My alter ego on planet Zorbakkian is giving it 6 thumbs down.
![]()
...this whole thing has begun to give me gas...since GK never seems to run out of gas....
Bookmarks