[dmux]

>No, you are actually safer not having an irresponsible person in your home. If everyone in your home is a responsible person...

Gun violence solved: Just don't have an irresponsible person in your home.

It's not like people have mental breakdowns or have an onset of a mental illness, right? Of course not, once responsible, always responsible.

[pdonis]

> Gun violence solved: Just don't have an irresponsible person in your home.

Doing that doesn't just "solve" gun violence. Focusing on the guns as though they're the root problem when irresponsible people are involved is like painting over the rust on your car and thinking it "solves" the problem.

> once responsible, always responsible

I made no such claim. Obviously the responsible/irresponsible judgment is not one you just make one time and then it never changes. Any reasonable person will understand that making such judgments is an ongoing process.

[dmux]

>Focusing on the guns as though they're the root problem when irresponsible people are involved is like painting over the rust on your car and thinking it "solves" the problem.

Guns aren't the root problem but their accessibility is an enabler -- a multiplying force for opportunistic carnage.

>Any reasonable person will understand that making such judgments is an ongoing process.

This goes against what we've seen with mass killers and the third parties involved: Average, every-day people convince themselves that their loved one / friend will get over whatever they're dealing with. We also know that many of these mass killers are sociopaths and have no difficulties in acting normal and hiding their motives.

[pdonis]

> Guns aren't the root problem but their accessibility is an enabler -- a multiplying force for opportunistic carnage.

That still doesn't justify taking away guns from people who aren't going to commit opportunistic carnage. The root problem is the people, not the guns.

> Average, every-day people convince themselves that their loved one / friend will get over whatever they're dealing with.

I get that this happens. But the average, every-day people still have to understand that, if there is a gun in the house, "convincing yourself" is not enough. Unless you are sure, i.e., sure enough to bet your own life on it (because you are) that the person is not going to misuse the gun, you cannot allow them access to it. That is perfectly compatible with still believing that they will get over it in time.

> We also know that many of these mass killers are sociopaths and have no difficulties in acting normal and hiding their motives.

If you are not sure that someone is not a sociopath, then don't allow them access to your gun.

I simply don't see any of these things as valid reasons to take away guns from people who are responsible adults. If your definition of "responsible adult" actually does not include making judgments like the above, and being able to separate your emotional desire for a loved one to "heal" from your rational, practical need to not give them access to guns until you're sure they are healed, then your definition of "responsible adult" is wrong. And if our society has deteriorated to the point where the definition of "responsible adult" I am giving--which to a person of, say, my parents' generation would have seemed so obvious as to not even be worth stating--is something "average, every-day people" do not think they can live up to, then we have a much, much bigger problem with our society than gun violence. Our society has adult problems that require adult solutions. That requires adult citizens. If we don't have adult citizens, our society is doomed.