If the left had its way, this shooting would never have happened.

[athena]

97. There is nothing wrong with making an argument based on a hypothetical.

It's when someone starts demanding proof for one hypothetical argument, while making a different hypothetical argument, that someone is being intellectually dishonest.

You can go ahead and make standard gun-nut arguments while claiming that you're not into guns -- like arguing that the second ammendment is the only one that should have no restrictions whatsoever; that since no law can prevent all gun deaths, laws that aim to ban gun deaths are pointless; and that because *some* shooters obtain their gun illegally, there is no need for any laws to restrict gun ownership. There are standard responses to your standard arguments. See:
https://theprogressivecynic.com/debunking-right-wing-talking-points/refuting-gun-enthusiasts-anti-gun-control-arguments/

And congratulations on not having needed to consult a mental health professional. In my experience, those who have demonstrated the courage to see one are much healthier on average than those who take pride in not having needed mental health. But if it makes you feel superior, go right ahead and feel superior.