The plan is to buy a gun from a pawn shop and immediately surrender it to the police station, asking that it be destroyed, because one gun that is taken off the market might make a difference somehow, and you have literally no other way to attempt to make a difference, and all you can hope to do is take one away from the equation.
Complications: > History of mental illness (both genetically and personally) > Employment by the state > Present state of administrative leave by said state on account of current sexual harassment charges (none of which have been able to be corroborated after 6 1/2 months of an open investigation) > Current debt-to-income ratio incapable of sustaining the financial burden of purchasing a $300-$500 firearm, not to mention the licensing fees associated therewith, were I even capable of passing whatever background checks might reveal my prior induction into two separate mental health facilities (whereupon I was diagnosed with Bipolar (I) with Psychotic Features, but which HIPAA laws suggest is that which I am constitutionally protected from having to disclose, because I voluntarily admitted myself each time. > General talk-like-a-fag syndrome
So, Jow Forums - how would you produce this story, or would you conclude it an immediate failure and send it the YouTube cutting board?
Is it filmed? Is it written? Is it podcast? Is it casted at all by whoever might better voice it than the people who make it?
Is it an anecdote?
I'm just basically shooting randomly into the crowd for feedback, here.
Maybe that difference will be one less person able to defend themselves and itll result in their death, and maybe their children
It's like play-acting. You pretend you could produce something because you have money.
Someone pitches you an idea, and you respond to it.
If you think it's a stupid idea, you say so, but if you think it might have value, you also say so.
Sorry if I'm a little manic.
So, like, literally I know that it's a retarded idea that taking one gun out of the market would make any difference whatsoever.
That's what they call the "conceit" in terms of argumentation.
It's like the "even though" moment.
So, the idea is that even though I'm not doing anything statistically significant, the symbolic action of purchasing a gun only to send it to the foundry is itself significant enough, especially considering my particular challenges.
I mean, I honestly don't know whether or not I could legally buy one.
I think I can, but that depends on the HIPAA laws and the specifics in terms of at which point a diagnosis by a mental-health professional would prevent a citizen of the United States from acquiring their 2nd-Amendment right of a firearm.
I mean, I don't think I've ever done anything that should prevent me from having one if I wanted it, but then again... all I'd do with it were I to acquire one would be to have it smelted down into ore, so I'm really interested to know if I have that right under the 2nd amendment.
You can't solve school shootings, by the way.
You can help make weapons that enable them harder to find, though.
I mean, it's not rocket-science.
Here's a radical idea: the whole problem in the first place is that personal firearms enable humans to exact vengeance on other human beings.
That's a really obvious dead-end, though.
Individually, who are we?
So you blow the head off the milkman who's been fucking your wife.
Great. Let's say you never get caught. So what?
What did you prove?
In terms of the overall difference to the people who are affected by the absence of this individual, is it a net-positive?
What about his family? What about his friends? What about that random person who you immediately identify with and who he somehow contributes to the well-being of simply out of the kindness of his spirit, because he's literally a trope at this point but you still get what I'm trying to say because you're not a complete idiot?
It's never going to solve the larger problem - for one, the need to take the reins of justice from whatever powers confer life or death, and for two - like, why the fuck were milkmen such pimps back in the day? Seriously, how does that even work? Like, "Here's you're cow-juice, Miss Parsons, and might I say how comely you look in that apron..." and they just fuck? Like, they had rounds to keep for chrissake - they had a schedule, and if they got half as much pussy as people keep claiming, I don't see how they could have avoided having to explain it to their managers, who either would understand and comp the time (and if they could turn that shit into overtime, it would be the best thing ever, but that almost never happened) or tell them to tone their shit down, in which case it would lead to just really convoluted attempts to arrange after-work meetings and shit that was mostly the reason they got caught.
Thank you for listening to my TED talk. I'm basically working off of epigenetic memory at this point, being the ancestor of a milkman.
Or is it one of those cases where the trope is an anti-trope, and it's the illegitimacy of the logistics that makes it so obviously untenable that it's only the antithesis of the possibility of it being true that allows the trope to survive?
I mean, who the fuck is going to randomly have sex with fucking milkman?
They have nothing to offer.
They aren't going to ever be rich.
They probably don't even own the truck.
If you fuck the milkman, you're just fucking a body who has as much connection to your social life as a secret dream who you'd never admit to your closest friend.
But if you're the milkman, then you accept that fact.
Sometimes it just be like that.
I don't actually think so. I think there's a certain logic which connects the admittedly-seemingly-sporadic threads of reasoning, but unless you have any specific questions in terms of what you might interpret as illogical or poorly reasoned thought, it's hard to know what you exactly mean.
But instead of saying that, why not say something that gets us back on whatever track you think isn't schizoid?
Like, what point do you have to prove in order to call it that?
I'm all ears.
You put way too much effort into that shitty concept. It’s almost endearing.
If I produced a show about solving mass shootings, I’d make a story about all mass murderers being homosexual pedos. So when someone starts to write a manifesto they realize they’ll look gay and kill themselves instead of other people.
Thanks. I put way too much effort into most shitty concept that comes my way - and I'm not gonna lie: it's a lot.
I have more shitty concepts than a coke-addled movie executive in the 1980s who were grilled by their sup to somehow outdo fucking E.T., and they're just hoping to stall long enough before they turn to someone else.
My shitty concepts have shitty concepts that are less shitty than the concepts that are come up with by those for whom the concomitant shitty concepts are correlated, and thus made less shitty by association, which is logically paradoxical in ways that makes you just want to shoot yourself in the head.
Which I wouldn't do, even if I owned a gun, and which is a larger struggle than anyone wants to talk about, but like that's one of the things that gun-ownership means: the ability to quickly end your own life.
Why isn't this one of the first things we talk about when we discuss gun-ownership?
Are we that caught up in the idea of foiling robberies that we forget that most deaths by gun are self-inflicted?
I think that might be the best epitaph I've ever seen: "Almost Endearing"
You don’t even know what you’re writing, lay off Smoking speed.
>You don’t even know what you’re writing, lay off Smoking speed.
Honestly, it's not often that I take offense to any response I encounter on Jow Forums, but this is an exception.
I know exactly what I'm saying. I'm not fucking delusional or misguided or optimistic or pessimistic or jaded or hopeful or anything else you might suggest that would preclude me from knowing what I'm writing.
And furthermore, I haven't done speed since the late nineties. Like not even the late-late nineties, either. So fuck off with your stereotypes.
>buys gun >less guns in pawn shops >consumers have to buy from producers >more money for gun companies >new guns created to meet demand
I'm not talking about the economic impact of the purchase.
This seems to be a harder concept to communicate than I can really pull off, and that's a shame.
I mean, the Adam Smith-Bots are like in full-force here, to speak purely metaphorically.
Of course you're right in terms of the pure economic impact.
But there are things in this world that matter more than the economy.
If that's not true, then I'm living on more borrowed time than I could ever pay back, even if I lived to be like a million years old, lol...
That's a pretty compelling pic-related.
I mean, the moustache alone is worth the journey.
It's like a strange dimension where Ashton Kutcher and Blake Anderson morph into the bubbling, barely visible head of Kim Jung-Il, and there remains only the whispering vision of Zach Braff to shame you to the grave.
I mean, like, where is the lie tho?
Firearm bans across countries and reductions in homicide rate (including suicides) aren't correlated. Firearm bans or waiting periods may reduce a particular sort of suicide -- impulsive suicides generally by men, but doesn't really budge the needle much overall. Women favor overdosing, men favor guns and also hanging. Most suicides aren't SHE DUMPED ME TIME TO AN HERO, they're the result of a much more chronic despair.
You know, they’ll just make more guns. They will make them faster than you can destroy them. It’s like trying to save dental bills by buying a soda and then pour it out.
So I'm hearing that have no interest in optioning any format of the narrative because it doesn't correlate with the data you have collected.