I really don’t understand this devotion to Wittgenstein and this obsession with language. — Michael

What he attempted to do was to straighten out the kind of confusion we see here. A parent attending to a child with an ear infection understands pain better than someone enchanted by and entangled in free floating reasoned argument abstracted from experience.

Wittgenstein says:

Philosophy unravels the knots in our thinking; hence its results must be simple, but its activity is as complicated as the knots that it unravels.

By philosophy he does not mean the kind of conceptual confusion philosophers get themselves into, but rather what he does to disentangle the knots they get themselves into. But too often readers get tangled up by the moves he makes to untangle the knots.

Another apt quote from him:

I am sitting with a philosopher in the garden; he says again and again 'I know that that’s a tree', pointing to a tree that is near us. Someone else arrives and hears this, and I tell him: 'This fellow isn’t insane. We are only doing philosophy.

If we are to make headway on the problem of consciousness where do you think it might come from if not cognitive science?

You don't sound to be familiar with Aristotle's work on the systematization of the field. — Nickolasgaspar

What are Aristotle's two basic steps? How do they form a system? What is the framework that led to knowledge of certain principles and causes?

Aristotle, like Plato and Socrates before him was a zetetic skeptic. He does not give us answers, although it may appear to the casual reader that he does. He wants us to think, not hang posters of wise statements on our cave walls.

In both the Physics and Metaphysics Aristotle introduces accidental causes. What are the implications of Aristotle’s accidental causes? Simply put, the cosmos cannot be understood in terms of the four causes or necessity. This fifth cause makes a systematic philosophy impossible.

And this is why those two steps are important in any Philosophical inquiry. — Nickolasgaspar

You mean the two steps you refuse to identify?

Well Socrates was (probably) Plato's creation and this is why we don't have any writings from this dude. — Nickolasgaspar

Socrates was a real person. His contemporaries Aristophanes and Xenophon also wrote about him. In any case, in the Phaedrus Plato's Socrates discusses the problem. "Wise statements" cannot be questioned. They cannot clarify or defend themselves.

Yes Socrates's method guided a discussion through challenging questions(απορίες), but those questions were design to expose inconsistencies between opinions, facts of the world and logic. — Nickolasgaspar

Aporia are not challenging questions, they are an impasse. The point where logos or reasoned discussion can go no further. The point where there are no answers to our questions. The point where problems go unsolved.

No they don't. — Nickolasgaspar

This is like answering the question "this or that?" by saying yes.

quote="Nickolasgaspar;795213"]But I still don't understand why you insist on talking about Plato or Socrates.[/quote]

In order to show that Bunge's assumption that philosophy is about problem solving is too narrow. It is true of much of modern philosophy but not ancient philosophy.

My question is really simple. How one can philosophize without using objective knowledge as the foundation for his auxiliary assumptions. — Nickolasgaspar

My answer is really simple. Philosophy is not grounded on objective knowledge. Modern philosophy attempted to establish such a ground but failed. This is one reason why there is so much interest in ancient philosophy. But we can also look at contemporary anti-foundationalist philosophers.

Actually they almost always end in aporia. If they don't , then it means we have the data to answer them....in that case we are no longer doing Philosophy, we are doing science. — Nickolasgaspar

We are more or less in agreement on this.

Philosophical frameworks (wise statements) are usually theories within a scientific field or in Mathematics. — Nickolasgaspar

If you are claiming that philosophical frameworks are not frameworks for doing philosophy, then we are in agreement. But I do not agree that theories in science and mathematics are a philosophical framework or wise statements.

You will need to provide an example or else I can not accept it as a meaningful answer . — Nickolasgaspar

In Plato's Symposium Socrates describes the philosopher as someone who loves wisdom. He calls this love eros, desire for something one does not have. Aristotle begins the Metaphysics by saying we desire to know. The Metaphysics does not satisfy that desire. The desire to know always exceeds what we know. In your own terms, it is not science.

that isn't an example. that is a vague claim. — Nickolasgaspar

Self-knowledge is not about:

objective , empirical data that allow a reality check over our conclusions. — Nickolasgaspar

We often deceive ourselves about ourselves. The problem is honesty, not empirical data. We can collect data that supports what we want to believe about ourselves and ignore what does not. We can think our self-evaluation is objective when it is not.

Don't you make any observations(acquire knowledge) — Nickolasgaspar

Two different things. Of course I make observations. I have not said anything that should lead you to think otherwise. We do acquire knowledge through observation, but have you ever observed that two people observing the same thing come away with different opinions? Opinions rather than knowledge.

You shouldn't question that because is not an assumption. Its a fact. — Nickolasgaspar

It is an assumption about philosophy as a whole, about all of philosophy as it is or should be.

The fact is, not all philosophy is about problem solving. That is why I have been talking about ancient philosophy.

This is what we as human beings do, trying to solve problems and questions. — Nickolasgaspar

Not all human beings are philosophers and not all attempts to solve problems are philosophical attempts to solve philosophical problems.

That's not even even meaningful. Statements don't have "a self". Can you elaborate? — Nickolasgaspar

You have unwittingly made my point. You ask for elaboration. A statement cannot provide elaboration.

That statements do not explain themselves does not mean that statements have "a self". It is necessary for someone to do what the statement cannot, address your misunderstanding.

Again the definition of the word includes the ability to make good judgment....I think that proves puzzle solving is what one can do by making a good judgment. — Nickolasgaspar

What one can do with knowledge of principles and causes is not the reason they are sought. The desire to know and what one does with that knowledge are not the same.

False Messiah. Def: — Leader whose followers get crucified before he does. — unenlightened

They do not believe he is a false messiah, but he does want them to believe that they are the one's being crucified. As he told the faithful in Waco:

They're coming after you.

Are you claiming that there are philosophical methods that ignore those two basics steps(all our epistemology ) but they still managed to steer our frameworks to wisdom? — Nickolasgaspar

What two basic steps?

Philosophy is not a how to manual. There are no frameworks to wisdom.

How one can even make any judgements without having actual material to judge? — Nickolasgaspar

I don't see how they could.

-Again, irrelevant! He made observations of the phenomenon in questions and he arrived to a wise claim. — Nickolasgaspar

This is simply wrong. Socratic philosophy is dialectical. The result is often aporia not wise claims. There is a reason Socrates never wrote anything. No book of "wise statements".

Same error you confuse the content with the quality that provides philosophical value at a statement! — Nickolasgaspar

I don't know what this means. Statements have content.

That is not what I rejected. I was referring to Plato's/Socrates — Nickolasgaspar

Plato's writings are works of philosophy. If you or Bunge make these overarching claims about what philosophy is and those claims exclude what Plato does, then the problem is with your claim.

Again, same error....the content of a philosophical Inquiry is irrelevant on how we evaluate the final product. — Nickolasgaspar

"Wise statements" are not the final product of the dialogues. They often end in aporia. It is the inquiry itself, thinking through the questions raised, that is at issue. That we cannot arrive at a "final product" is the point. We are left without wisdom. We are left in the position of the philosopher, that is, of one who desires to be but is not wise.

Now you may not agree, but your disagreement does not mean that the dialogues are excluded from philosophy.

Our (or Socrates) conclusions need to have a specific quality (wisdom) in order to be philosophical. — Nickolasgaspar

This leaves you in the precarious position of having to defend the claim that the Socratic dialogues are not philosophical.

Any objective , empirical data that allow a reality check over our conclusions. We will need an example. — Nickolasgaspar

Self-knowledge is the example.

Solving problems is only an inescapable side effect — Nickolasgaspar

Not according to Bunge. According to him solving problems is the goal of philosophy. I questioned that assumption. I don't think you understand that. You claimed that it is not an assumption. I asked you for clarification. If solving problems is only a side effect then you too reject his assumption.

Here we have a good example of why philosophy is not "wise statements". Statements cannot defend themselves against misunderstanding.

After all certaib principles and causes allow science to solve problems. — Nickolasgaspar

According to Aristotle it is not the ability to solve problems that makes one wise. You are looking at him through the lens of modern science.

You are confusing Socrate's interest in a specific topic (how best to live) with the overarching Philosophical method. — Nickolasgaspar

There are various philosophical methods. Philosophical methods are not for the sake of method. The method is not independent of what it is one seeks to know or understand or clarify, or, the case you are defending, the problems it is trying to solve. The latter is a part not the whole.

His famous quotes, which btw were wise statements, were the "tools" he used to make sense of that aspect of Human life. — Nickolasgaspar

Statements do not stand alone, they are part of his dialectical method. Statements are subject to elenchus. An account defending statements in response to questioning must be given. Socratic philosophy is not about making or collecting "wise statements". It is zetetic skepticism.

Philosophy goal is wisdom, a philosophers goal is to understand a phenomenon (i.e. human nature) by arriving wise statements. — Nickolasgaspar

There are philosophers who eschew talk of wisdom. For Socratic philosophy is the desire for wisdom, a desire that is never fulfilled. A goal that is never reached. The question of human nature is only a part of the larger questions of the the just, the beautiful, and the good, as well as that of the whole.

sorry for rejecting your argument but I think it will complicate this discussion even more — Nickolasgaspar

As I see it, the question of what philosophy is cannot be separated from criticism of it. Questioning Bunge's assumption that the purpose of philosophy is to solve problems does not complicate the discussion, it is at the root of it.

-Lets not go there,its irrelevant to the Nature of Philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar

It may be irrelevant to what you think of as the nature of philosophy, but there are different kinds of philosophy with different questions, concerns, methods, and answers. Socratic philosophy is concerned with human being and the self, that is, with particular persons, oneself and others.

-This is why Objective Empirical Verification is necessary for any statement in order to be acknowledged as "wise". — Nickolasgaspar

What is the objective empirical verification that informs self-knowledge?

Aristotle includes Epistemology and Physika in his method. — Nickolasgaspar

Aristotle's Metaphysics begins:

All men naturally desire knowledge.

(980a)

and goes on to say:

Thus it is clear that Wisdom is knowledge of certain principles and causes.

(982a)

Knowledge of principles and causes is not knowledge of how to solve problems.

Love of wisdom can mean different things.
— Fooloso4
-Not really, but feel free to describe different meanings. — Nickolasgaspar

You give a very good example:

I can only boil it down to one thing:"our love to arrive to wise statements fuels our intellectual endeavors". — Nickolasgaspar

To arrive at wise statements is not the goal of Socratic philosophy. Socrates wisdom is knowledge of ignorance. Knowing you are ignorant is only the first step. The question is: how best to live knowing we do no know how best to live. It is not about statements or intellectual endeavors, but about how best to live.

In the Republic the philosopher is compelled to return to the cave. The life of contemplation cannot be lived unless the philosopher is wise with regard to political life. Socrates' trial is a case in point. Xenophon is instructive here as well. In his Socratic dialogues Socrates deals with quotidian practical matters, not just intellectual endeavors.

No that's not true. — Nickolasgaspar

If you mean that it is not true that to be wise is to solve problems in the world, then we are in agreement against Bunge.

-It doesn't have a specific direction. Inner problems are also part of this world.(if I understand you correctly, feel free to correct me). — Nickolasgaspar

Consider Plato's Republic. It is not intended to be a plan for an actual city. It is made clear that such a city is highly improbable. The city in speech is said to be to see the soul writ large, and this for the purpose of seeing what justice is. For a soul to be just is possible. A just city is not something he even aims at. If this city were to be made actual we would not think it just.

For more on inward versus outward directedness see Descrtes provisional morality above.

Any type of "knowledge-" even "self-knowledge" is evaluated by its empirical results. (the way you live and the way you can change your world)./quote]

Look at what happens in the Republic when the philosopher is compelled to return to the city/cave. Socrates was found guilty of corrupting the youth. There is clear empirical evidence of philosophy's corruptive influence. They came to question the beliefs and values of their ancestors.

How we evaluate empirical results can differ depending on our state of self-knowledge, with what we value and take to be important.
— Nickolasgaspar

From your health metrics to your impact in your world ...we can use them to see whether the "knowledge" you accumulated did help you to take wise decisions. — Nickolasgaspar

What is the measure of whether or not a decision was wise? If someone is not wise they might think an unwise decision wise. Someone might accumulate knowledge of how to attain a certain result and think it wise when they attain it, but there is a difference between getting what you want and what is wise to want.

Socrates may have hoped to fix the political problems of Athens — Gnomon

He didn't.

Aristotle added the quest for practical knowledge of the physical world (Science) — Gnomon

Good point, but the goal was not to know in order to change the world.

Socrates' metaphysical admonition to "know thyself". — Gnomon

In what sense is this metaphysical?

Philosophy is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language. — Gnomon

Certainly that is one approach or way of doing philosophy, but not the only one. Systematic attempts can force things to fit in place within the system or leave them out.

It is talking to you that leads nowhere.

Like you said, you don't get it.

Calling, chanting, fomenting. The guy must be a sorcerer. — NOS4A2

No, just a demagogue and false messiah. The faithful do what he says.

I don’t get it. — NOS4A2

Yes. That is the point. You are unable to think through what you say. Go back, starting with your rejection of the general or common good and go step by step to your acceptance of "we the people" to the tangled mess you are in now.

Descartes "provisional moral code" from the Discourse on Method marks the difference between ancient and modern philosophy.

My third maxim was to try always to master myself rather than fortune, and to change my desires rather than the order of the world.

This is the approach of the ancients. It is provisional because his method will allow man to master fortune. Man will no longer have to accept things the way they are. Descartes method of reason is, as he says in the Meditations, the Archimedean point from which he can move the world.

The basic question of ‘What should we do?’ then became more about societal means of education to make people’s lives ‘better’ and/or how to ‘rule’ people and generally improve life for yourself and others. — I like sushi

The question of what we should do is tied to the question of what we can do. With the modern project of the conquest of nature the possibilities of what we can do is greatly expanded. Mastering oneself becomes secondary to mastering fortune. Why change yourself when you can change the world to accord with the self?

The self, following Descartes, is that "thinking thing". Here philosophy and psychology split off. The ancient maxim "know thyself" no longer has a place. It is replaced by the acceptance of an objective attitude, a "view from nowhere".

Political philosophy is replaced by political science. The question of 'What should we do?' is replaced by the question of how to make people's lives 'better'. The question of what makes life better fades into the background, as if answered and settled.

They same people — NOS4A2

According to what you have said:

People = human beings = we

Once again you avoid answering the question. It is not a matter of whether or not you are against taxes. Taxes are paid.

Who gets to decide how tax-payer dollars ought to be spent? It can't be the tax-payers if there are tax-payers on both sided of the issue. This is the same problem you refuse to face with "we". For you it really means "you". — Fooloso4

-Its not an assumption. It is defined by the etymology of the term "philosophy" (love of sophia(wisdom). — Nickolasgaspar

Love of wisdom can mean different things. The assumption here is that to be wise is to solve problems in the world. It is outward directed. This view characterizes modern philosophy and is grounded in scientific advances and the control of nature. The ancients were more concerned with self-knowledge. How to live versus how to change the world.

Massimo Pigliucci "considers the usefulness of philosophy". As opposed to the study of "esoteric matters", he proposes that Philosophy should be "the study and practice of the art of living". — Gnomon

This goes back at least to the story of Thales. Aristophanes ridiculed Socrates not only for the uselessness of philosophy but for it being dangerous. Both Plato and Xenophon address this. Whether it is useful or useless depends on the person and what they want for their life. It is with regard to this that Socrates says that the unexamined life is not worth living. In other words, the philosophic life is the only truly useful life.

You continue to ignore the problem. You are against the power of the state, except when you are in favor of what it does.

Who gets to decide how tax-payer dollars ought to be spent? It can't be the tax-payers if there are tax-payers on both sided of the issue. This is the same problem you refuse to face with "we". For you it really means "you".

... the NY case is not a very good one. — RogueAI

It is too early to tell. We have to wait to see what the criminal charges brought against him will be.

I see nothing wrong with the Parental Rights in Education bill — NOS4A2

I see nothing right with your attempt to evade the issue. But since you wont address those issues I'll address the one you raise in their place.

A bill that passes becomes part of the power of the state. This bill does not expand the power of parents. Despite the name of the bill it represents the very thing you claim to be opposed to, the power of the state.

The state of Florida, not the county, not the town, or the city, or the school district, or the school itself has any right to teach as it deems appropriate. All state employees must comply with the ideology of the state, an ideology that hides from students ugly parts of American history.

But it is not just elementary and secondary education. With the hostile takeover of New College, and his battle with the college board over African American studies, DeSantis's reach extends to college education as well.

Those teachers can teach their own kids about sexuality as much as they wish, but they ought not have that same power over other children. — NOS4A2

It would be surprising to hear you argue for limits to free speech given your argument against limiting free speech, but we have come to expect inconsistency and lack of coherence from you.

For those who prefer the written word. Bunge's criticisms:

Link

There is much here that I agree with, but his criticism is guided by a questionable assumption, that the goal of philosophy is to address and solve problems, to contribute "new knowledge", to be useful in the narrow sense of problem solving.

We are human beings. — NOS4A2

How are we human beings to protect ourselves from ourselves? Do you think that everyone who is not part of the government cares about your interests and will rush to defend you and your rights? Can your guns protect you if you are outnumbered or overpowered?

It’s the nature of state education to have its curriculum determined by the state. — NOS4A2

Don't change the subject. You claimed:

... we grant them the freedom to speak, refuse to intervene when they are doing so, and defend that right if necessary. — NOS4A2

There are individuals, human beings, who are not part of a state educational system who are actively working to limit freedom of speech. As human beings they too are included in "we". So, "we" human beings also deny others freedom of speech. "We" also intervene when "they", (who are also "we"), want to uphold freedom of speech. "We" also deny that right if necessary.

We use our reason, speech, and bodies to derive, confer, and protect rights, like any right that has ever been uttered. — NOS4A2

Who are we? Vigilantes?

So we grant them the freedom to speak — NOS4A2

Again, who are we?

There are plenty of people, from individuals to school board members to the governor of Florida, who attempt to do away with that freedom. In many cases they succeed.

And now we're prosecuting him for a malum prohibita, a law created by the government — Hanover

Right, election laws are created by the government, as are laws against falsification of records.

The case is likely to be based on combining the two. The latter is a misdemeanor in New York law, but:

To elevate the crime to a felony charge, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors must show that Mr. Trump’s “intent to defraud” included an intent to commit or conceal a second crime.

In this case, that second crime could be a violation of election law.

NYT

There are no such rights because you refuse to give them. You will not afford anyone the right to life or the right to own anything. And of course you will not defend them. Only government can do that. — NOS4A2

Yes NOS, if only everyone would behave and not take anything from anyone else and if someone did take something from someone else we should defend the person who was wronged.

If only ...

Do you really need to be told that this is not the way the world works?

Here are some facts for those who think they are important:

Bragg did not start the investigation. He inherited it. He was concerned with the strength of the case and slowed down the investigation. As a result the two leading prosecutors resigned. It was not until successfully convicting the Trump's company of tax fraud that he convened a new grand jury. He would not have done so if he did not think he now has a strong case. We do not know the details of the case. The Republican leaders do not know the details of the case either, but are circling the wagons and amping up the rhetoric and threats. All in an effort to get the voters to decide before the trial even begins and evidence is heard.

Guessing at what the short and long term consequences of indictment might be should not be the determining factor. We do not know what those consequences will be. In addition, these are not the only consequences to be considered. Treating someone as if he is above the law and unaccountable to the people he is sworn to serve is a bigger problem.

If you want to know what Trump is guilty of, not just in this case but since the beginning of his political career, look at what he accuses others of.

He has turned a legal issue into a political one, and accused the Democrats of being the ones doing that. If they don't cuff him he will request that they do. All the better for his image as a reality TV star martyr, an image he has been cultivating from the beginning. As he told the faithful in Waco:

"They're coming after you." — Fooloso4

This he has convinced them is the real threat of what he calls the "weaponization of law enforcement". He has turned law enforcement into a weapon to be used against the faithful MAGA followers, the good people who must fight against the forces of evil.

The threat of civil war is real, but given the disparity of power and weapons, it will not be fought by conventional means. The battleground will be the hearts and minds of the people.

Their research showed that a large share of shooters were suicidal in the year before they committed their violent acts. Taking a gun to school (or shopping center...) and opening fire was a fairly certain way of dying--a form of suicide by police bullet. — BC

How many of these shooters would not take a high capacity semiautomatic rifle to school if they did not have one?

Although suicide is a mental health issue not everyone who becomes suicidal suffers from mentally ill.

The majority of suicides by gun are not mass murders. The majority of deaths by gun are not mass murder.

The only common factor in all these cases is guns. We should do more to adequately address mental health but it is not on its own the answer.

I quit being a crime lord in the Fall of 1951. — jgill

Some students who struggle with math might think teaching math is the bigger crime.

Thanks for the vivid telling of this true crime story.

On another note. Watch Trump's left shoulder. His posture has changed. He tries to appear confident but he seems to be weighed down by the mounting legal pressures. But this is likely to make him more erratic and dangerous.

I think they will come to see that backing Trump is a liability, but I would not bet on it. A major factor is what will happen with the protests Trump is instigating. With each protest following each indictment if the protest turn violent, which seems likely, I think more and more sensible Republican voters will turn against him. When enough do the political "leaders" will follow.

But there is another factor. The timeline to MAGA, for deep pocket, high power conservatives, means going back to undoing the socialist programs of Franklin Roosevelt. Of course for the average MAGA supporter it means something different, they do not want to give up Social Security. But this is not where the dark money is. On the other hand, they despise Trump and will only support him as long as they think he can further their own plutocratic interests.

I own property because I purchased it or made it. — NOS4A2

Your ownership of the property is protected by the rule of law and from someone coming in and taking it from you by force.

I won't go into your anti-tax rant again. It rings hollow. You receive from the government far more than you [correction: give].

I get to live on a plot of the lord’s land, pay them a certain percentage of what I myself make and create through my own industry ... — NOS4A2

The lord's land? You live in a fantasy. Did you or the lord build the infrastructure on that land?

... so that I might find solace in the chance that my government will protect me should war come knocking. — NOS4A2

If it comes it will not knock. But the likelihood of it even coming is greatly reduced because our borders are guarded. But there is no need for you to be concerned. You have a gun.

Restricting my rights to own a gun does not protect the rights of anyone else, for I have not violated anyone’s rights. — NOS4A2

Once again, you need to look at the issue from a perspective that is not limited to you. You are not the only person with a gun. In addition, the example cited has nothing to do with guns.

Yet the government reserves for itself the right to own weapons that can destroy the whole planet. Where is the gun control then? If this isn’t antithetical to the interests of the individual I don’t know what is. — NOS4A2

I agree that the arms race is a problem, but national security is not antithetical to the interests of the individual.

What this all boils down to ... — NOS4A2

It is not what it boils down to but rather what the narrowness of your understanding allows you to see.

That story could have turned out very differently! It makes me wonder about what happened leading up to the story that brought together a fourteen year old, a mafioso, and a frequently fired stolen gun.

An impressive vocabulary. — jgill

Arthur Koestler's definition of philosophy:

the systematic abuse of a terminology specially invented for that purpose.

You own private property because that right is protected by the government. You are able to speak freely because the government protects you by limiting its own power.

I am down for any law that is just and protects the rights of the individual. — NOS4A2

Sometimes, in order to protect the rights of an individual constraints are put on the rights of other individuals. If you are a business owner, for example, you cannot hire children to work in a sweatshop.

Laws that protect the state, its own interests, or some other interest group are unjust and do not protect the rights of the individual. — NOS4A2

That is an overly broad, vague, and simplistic generalization, intended to pit the government against the individual. The interests of the state are not necessarily antithetical to the interests of the individual. The example, chosen to stay on topic, is gun control.

The self-centered, myopic view is that gun control violates individual rights. Does it? The majority of people favor gun control. The prevalence of guns violates their right to life. Right now, judging by government inaction, the state and powerful special interest groups such as the NRA are aligned with the interests of individuals who oppose gun control.

Suppose legislation is passed on gun control. Whose side would the government be on? On both sides there are the interests of individuals, but the interests and rights of more individuals would be served by limiting the right to sell and own and carry guns.

Setting up the state as the enemy of individual rights is nothing more than crass and empty rhetoric.

This was a problem with early Christianity. In order to curtail the practice it was declared that suicide would prevent you from getting into heaven.

I think if you had paid attention then the thin-veiled contempt wouldn't have gone over your head. — Tzeentch

These arguments often get heated and personal. Where did he express contempt for the claim that mental health is important?

With regard to thinly veiled contempt, your accusation that what is at issue went over my head did not.

It's funny you're reacting with such hostility to the suggestion that mental health is an important aspect to this problem. — Tzeentch

If you have been paying attention to what he has actually said I find this accusation incomprehensible. He has stated several times that he thinks mental health is a serious problem that should be addressed.

The question under discussion is gun control. Mental health is certainly an issue in the gun control debate, but the problem is the attempt to shift focus away from guns, to take gun control off the table and focus only on mental health.

Certainly not the government. Neither of us can name one right in the Bill of Rights that has not been violated. So how can you trust that they will protect your rights? — NOS4A2

I trust that they will protect my rights because they do in fact protect my rights and yours as well, albeit imperfectly. If you cannot see that it is because you are blinded by your ideology. The saying:

The best is the enemy of the good.

holds true in this case. Good laws are better than no laws. The goal should be to improve them not do away with them because they are less perfect.

You cannot live in society and not live according to its laws. You can work to change its laws, but cannot live as if you are above or free of the law.