4 comments

[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 14.8 ms ] thread
> IN CONCLUSION weapons aren't the problem - weapons in the hands of people with malicious intent are the problem.

This is a flawed argument.

Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people with nuclear weapons kill people.

Ergo, I should be allowed to have a nuclear weapon to defend myself from other people who have nuclear weapons.

Upvoting just for sheer fascination's sake.
Is his point that his own mental illness, which caused him in the most recent episode to hurt himself with a barbell, that because he "felt" that his weapons were technology based, that... no harm no foul (outside of his own personal self-destructiveness), therefore, HE should not have actual guns? This is at odds with his last statement of "weapons in the hands of people with malicious intent are the problem."

>the only people that came to physical harm during this episode as a result of my actions were two mes, one of whom i killed by smashing my head into a desk, and the other i killed by bashing a barbell onto the bridge of my nose. both instances of self-harm occurred because i was convinced someone had to suffer for all the wrongs ever done in the world, and the voices in my head told me i could take it out on someone else and it would all be over. i chose to try to kill those voices rather than let any harm come to someone i loved.

Somehow he "took control" of his manic episode and luckily did not harm someone else or kill himself, and he believes it was a thread of reality related to technology that "saved" him?

I would caution to seek medication/treatment if not already doing so... that is a tenuous line of safety to tread that in his manic episode he could believe in the "safety" of technology to fight off the paranoia.

I am confused as to what to take away from this.