Meaning society is far less likely to have to spend lots of scarce resources on someone who wanted to die anyway. And gunshot suicides are far less likely to harm others-such as the ******* who drove 100 MPH the wrong way on interstate 71 in Cincinnati 45 years ago in order to commit suicide. The mope, in a large vehicle, slammed into the Porsche driven by the father of two girls I knew well-this father and his wife died on the spot-orphaning the two girls who survived the wreck physically from the back seat-the would be suicide only suffered 6 years in prison. I'd much rather have had the schmuck shoot himself.
Are you suggesting supporting one's rights to own a firearm supports people dying? Does that work for other rights? If I say I support the First Amendment does that also mean that I support and condone things that racist people say? I wonder what makes the Second Amendment right so special. Why does somebody owning a firearm contribute in any way to people being killed? I support the right to associate, or to assemble peacefully. Do you? Even though I support that right it doesn't mean I agree or support the ku Klux Klan. Do you support the First Amendment? And if so using your logic regarding the Second Amendment how come you don't support the ku Klux Klan?
The obvious question of "so what?" must be asked with regard to the above. What ultimate, meaningful difference does such actually make? Why exactly are the lives of those who wish to end their own existence regarded as being so valuable, that their personal choices must be overridden by those who are not directly involved in the matter, or otherwise affected by the matter? Why should these individuals be forced to continue existing when they simply have no desire to do such? Such is nothing more than an open violation of the right to life, as well as sanctioned slavery.
The united states is not a developed nation. The matter is truly as simple as that. Any study can be made to say whatever the one providing the funding wishes for it to say. Simply because something is a study does not make it credible by mere virtue of it being a study. The only ones punishing innocent individuals with firearm-related violence, are those who are actually engaging in firearm-related violence. that being the violent criminals who are actually pulling the trigger. The united states is not the nation of Australia. Cease comparing the two as if they were substitution goods.
Dude we didn't start out as a penal colony, and we're the most powerful and prosperous nation on the planet. We have been for quite some time. And before we were top dog, we were a serious contender. We have more resources, more traffic etc. Smuggling is part and parcel to that, and not something that will ever simply stop no matter the efforts taken. Additionally, we've always been a well armed people, of varying ethnicities (remember there ARE multiple ethnicities that are now just called "white". That used to bother people. See "no irish need apply" and related phenomena), prior nationalities, social status, philosophy, etc. All that diversity causes friction along with the bonuses it brings. We also have a great number high pop density metropoli, which is where most of that violence is concentrated. Of that violence, a rather large portion is attributable to gang violence which is already illegal on so many levels it doesn't bear discussion. You have still yet to prove that the law abiding are the problem. Your study shows suicide is the fault of someone other than the person who kills themselves? Do tell. No, criminals do that. I am not responsible for the crimes and torts of others, this is a basic premise of american jurisprudence. If you'd allow them to be armed to defend themselves they'd be, according to the FBI, 95% less likely to get hurt/killed in a mass shooting. YOU are the one denying them that right which is both a crime and a tort. That's on you bud. There are 500k DGUs yearly according to the statistic most favorable to you so I sort of doubt it but hey man, you have a right to your dunning-kruger status.
I agree. Thats not really the 2A though. Thats a 'natural rights' argument as it should apply to every human. This is the sort of right that cannot be provided by law, but by the individual willing to fight to the death for it.
First off, the gun homicide rate in this country is highest where honest citizens are severely constrained in their ability to defend themselves. Gun suicides happen because people willingly choose to end their own lives; if you have a right to your life then you have a right to end it as you see fit IMHO. Gun accidents are exceedingly rare; fewer than 500 people nationwide die due to firearms accidents. So rare, in fact, as to be statistically nonexistent.
Nope. To own firearms is to make a strong statement of self-reliance, self-determination, and independence. I have a gun because it is a valuable tool for protecting my life and my family's lives from violence, as well as putting food on the table. I don't have to call 911 for help; I call 911 to deal with the aftermath of self-defense. I'm alive today because I have a gun, and that's more than sufficient justification for me.
Bovine excrement. Innocent people all have the same right of self-defense against violence as anybody else. Sadly, too few people choose to equip themselves to properly exercise that right.
Criminals will possess and seek out firearms regardless of how many firearms are legally owned by private individuals. An absence of legally owned firearms will not motivate fewer illegally acquired firearms as a result.
No, the issue is that you have a right to protect your life. The elimination of guns is totally impossible.
The only tool that can protect a 100 pound woman from being assaulted by a 250 pound rapist is a gun. The gun is the great equalizer.
Why let honesty get in the way of a good story. Would we be safer if we disarm law enforcement and security guards?
Guns also result in many Americans keeping their life every single day. And yeah, I'm proud to support ownership of firearms.
And the majority of those death are criminal on criminal shootings, which I strongly support, the more they kill each other, the safer the law abiding are.
Straw man argument. Why do people like you pretend that stopping homicides is your real motivation when it is not.
Bwahahahaha! Now that is priceless. Criminals, who are criminals because they don't follow the law, are afraid of legal gun owners so arm themselves in case they get shot while breaking into a house. You know very little about crime. The last thing a criminal wants is to be faced with a strong defense so usually try to rob houses when people are not home. The nutcases going around shooting people randomly tend to be in drug infested inner cities with a lot of gang violence where they expect everyone to be carrying illegally.
Because that's what they do and the only defense against such is a law abiding person with a gun. Holding up a cell and exclaiming "I'm calling 911, so you better drop that gun now" doesn't work all that well.
If you ascribe to the narratives paleontologists associated with the fossil evidence in the evolutionary record, on major factor in the proliferation of the hominid species was a successful adaptation in the development of tools, among them, the continuous improvement of tools adapted for hunting and defense against predatory species that shared their environment. Aside from continuously improved weapons they developed the numbers and cooperative strategies for both hunting and defense. Over time individuals and groups found they could emulate predators, prey on other hominids, and steal women, food, and sustaining territory. A successful response adaptation seen throughout the historic and archaeological record were both social and technological changes for defense, cities, walls, improved weapon technology, etc., followed, by similar counter measures of those making their living as predators. So, yes...a continual history of an arms race along with other technological and social adaptations. No group has long survived by giving up their means of defense... nowhere in history, without someone shielding them from predation. Predation always continues until no prey is left or until checked by superior defenses or at least the parity of mutual destruction is achieved. As for weapons technology, it is learned and conveyed as knowledge, and once invented and the tech learned, those with knowledge can replicate and build anything or use another, human adaptation to get it... trade. In modern times, few blink an eye if someone carries an effective weapon in the ‘Wild’ as defense against dangerous four legged predators, but many recoil at those carrying/owning weapons for defense against the far more dangerous two legged predators. Predators are creatures of opportunity...they rarely prey on victims when the chance of injury is high, but generally only when they have advantage in numbers (think pack), weapons, or strategy (ambush). History and nature provide eons of examples of the predator/prey relationship and little has changed over millions of years. Remove the ability of anyone to defend themselves and predator opportunism can happen. Want to be weapon free, you rely on the same percentages of every animals in a herd from falling victim to predators prey on the herd unless shielded by greater defense, which is something no society can guarantee to an individual; an individual can choose to take the statistical chance of being hidden among the heard from predators or increase survival potential by have the choice and means for self defense. Make your choice; I have made mine and my survival, and that of others as a consequence, thus far is evidence I made the right choice for me.