I am humbled by the presence of so many highly degreed psychologists within our group - who would have thought it!
Actually, it would appear that VERY FEW gunowners would go to the level that this person takes it. The sobering thought in this conversation is that a LOT of the thought process used here is very close to the process that was used by the gun control group when the infamous magazine capacity restriction was enacted.
"After all, just how many people really need more than ten rounds in a magazine. It certainly can be shown that most self-defense encounters involve less than ten rounds."
"After all, why would anyone need to own more than one gun?"
"After all, why would anyone need an assault rife?"
The list of "After alls" goes on and on and on.
When we start making the same type of arguments against someone who exceeds our own personal list of "After alls", we leave ourselves very little room to stand when gun control people decide to apply their concepts to our rights. And since we as a group feel totally comfortable in making our learned judgements as to the sanity and safety level of this person, we certainly can't complain if future laws allow the local sheriff to use his own learned judgement to decide if we are mentally fit to enjoy the "privilege" of owning a gun.
(I do believe that the group of gun owners in the USA is fractured into more splinter groups than any other in existence, except for the Democratic Party and their limited cohesiveness is only alive due to their blind rage toward the Republican Party!)