On gun control and mental illness from a startup CTO with bipolar disorder

Is his point that his own mental illness, which caused him in the most recent episode to hurt himself with a barbell, that because he "felt" that his weapons were technology based, that... no harm no foul (outside of his own personal self-destructiveness), therefore, HE should not have actual guns? This is at odds with his last statement of "weapons in the hands of people with malicious intent are the problem."

>the only people that came to physical harm during this episode as a result of my actions were two mes, one of whom i killed by smashing my head into a desk, and the other i killed by bashing a barbell onto the bridge of my nose. both instances of self-harm occurred because i was convinced someone had to suffer for all the wrongs ever done in the world, and the voices in my head told me i could take it out on someone else and it would all be over. i chose to try to kill those voices rather than let any harm come to someone i loved.

Somehow he "took control" of his manic episode and luckily did not harm someone else or kill himself, and he believes it was a thread of reality related to technology that "saved" him?

I would caution to seek medication/treatment if not already doing so... that is a tenuous line of safety to tread that in his manic episode he could believe in the "safety" of technology to fight off the paranoia.

I am confused as to what to take away from this.

> IN CONCLUSION weapons aren't the problem - weapons in the hands of people with malicious intent are the problem.

This is a flawed argument.

Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people with nuclear weapons kill people.

Ergo, I should be allowed to have a nuclear weapon to defend myself from other people who have nuclear weapons.

Upvoting just for sheer fascination's sake.