Good points from Gritty Grapnel Promise's discussion page (comments were disabled)
Having an interest in guns does not make somebody crazy and ready to shoot up a school As a kid I loved NERF guns, and if I had had social media back then I would've posted pics of those all the time! WOULD IT BE ANY DIFFERENT if I had a BB gun or paintball gun back then?? This is the kind of logic that you're trying to employ in the video, and it's illogical and quite honestly misses the point and targets an entire group of people who JUST..LIKE..GUNS.. and there is nothing wrong with that! Just like how some people like cars and other mechanical-based objects, people like guns too! Like I said, I LOVED NERF guns as a kid, and will probably enjoy a firearm hobby in the future, and this is NOT a negative thing.
I'll be honest, the video Evan had a really good message about recognizing potential threats in a potentially unstable individual. However the call to action for gun control completely takes any positive aspect of this video and throws it out the window. It takes a different problem that requires a different approach to fixing and attempts to apply it to a politically motivated cause, squandering the initial message. If guns were the real problem here then why did the majority of the video fixate on Evan? Did the gun CAUSE Evan to commit harm against others, or did Evan USE the gun to commit harm against others? Note that there is a difference between the two. But lets just pretend for a moment that guns did not exist in this scenario, at all, and Evan (or anyone else) could not have access to any firearm under any circumstances whatsoever. Would this stop Evan? With his primary choice of weapon out of the picture, would he be unable to harm anyone? Would his desire to harm others suddenly disappear along with his gun? The answer is no. If Evan truly had the desire to harm, maim, or kill, he would find another weapon to complete the task, simply finding an alternative to a gun rather than giving up entirely. This would likely be the case for many other perpetrators of mass shootings. Rather than jumping on the "guns kill people, therefor they must be banned/heavily regulated" bandwagon, this video should stick with its initial message of detecting the signs of a potential public threat. Because stopping the source of a threat is more effective than stopping one of a threat's method of enactment. If someone really wants someone else dead, very few things will stand in their way. And unfortunately, gun control is not one of those things.
TL;DR liking guns does not make you a honor student and you do not need a gun to hurt or kill somebody
Here's my two cents:
This video can be compared to someone who occasionally drinks alcohol and likes cars being accused of being a future drunk driver.
That point does break at the social media part though, since nobody posts "Time to chug five pints and practice stick shift!" on Twitter right before they drive drunk, do they?
TL;TL;DR;DR
This video is wrong.
