I think we should save the lives of those battling depression. There is a small group of individuals usually medically Ill who wish for suicide and should be granted it. But they are just a tiny minority. The rest we should try to save and in fact I do every day.
Those that want help seek it voluntarily. I directly saved extacly ONE suicide attempt, I happened to be right there when the radio call went out on Div 10, and I ran up the stairs, northbound Elevated, and saw Matty sailing off the platform and was able to grab her coat dig in and swing her around back onto the platform, a very risky dumb move. A one in a Million save. Saving people from suicide is not a very practical or realistic goal.
No they often don't. They are often detained against their will because of suicidal ideation. Most are so grateful they were. Those are simply the facts
You ever see was left after a 30 story drop from a Midtown building penthouse ? Not very pretty I assure you.
Sorry, but you offer a simplistic avenue that essentially supports the "gun grabbers" paranoia used by so many NRA propagandist. Most gunners arguing this subject point to just how many semi-automatic weapons that were on the list and how many were not. All I'm saying is that if you are pointing to something that warrants a ban, then use the same criteria....for you will STILL have a plethora of weapons available to get the job done.
The sheer dishonesty is how YOU try to separate information and historical records when it suits you. But let's just put an end to your nonsense here: http://usedguns-forsale.com/rifles/ar15-rifle-variations-configurations
Why should they be saved when they do not wish to go on existing? What makes their existence so valuable, so worthwhile, that it is worth fighting to protect and preserve at all costs?
The above is irrelevant to the discussion. The definition of what qualifies as a so-called "assault weapons" is based exclusively on cosmetic features, which do not in any way affect the functionality of the firearm. If the features are removed the firearm no longer meets the legal definition of a so-called "assault weapon" but the functionality remains exactly the same. The only way the definition can be modified to get around this get around of the law, is to redefine so-called "assault weapons" to include all semi-automatic firearms. That is ultimately the long and the short of the matter.
The Armalite AR-15 prototype, which went on to become the M16 rifle, is not relevant to discussions pertaining to the civilian-legal AR-15 rifle produced by companies such as Colt Manufacturing, Smith and Wesson, Stag Arms, and numerous other companies throughout the united states. The argument by yourself is that since the name is the same, the firearm must be the same as well. It is not. The name means absolutely nothing.
Then the admission is being freely made by yourself, that no sound argument is possessed as to why those who want to end their own existence, should actually be denied the freedom to make such a decision and act upon it.
I vote. And so do many americans. And we say these lives are worth saving. So who cares what you think. LOL
Being in the majority does not make the position of yourself correct. Even if it was, the united states does not operate on the mob rule where the majority wins. It is a constitutional republic, meaning the minority is taken into consideration. If such were not the case, homosexual marriage would still be illegal and unrecognized in the country.
So then show where my position is unconstitutional. Please cite the exact case as I do not care about YOUR opinion. LOL
Show where your position, that government has the legal authority to dictate that an individual must go on living even if they do not wish to do such, has actually been ruled as being constitutional. Show where the united state supreme court has stated that a suicidal individual has no right to die. It is your argument, your position, therefore it is your obligation to prove it to be correct.
Nope. We already have such laws on the books. Show me where they have been deemed unconstitutional. You lost this one buddy. LOL
Then cite the laws. Show that such is indeed the case, that government has the authority to dictate an individual must go on living when they have no desire to.
Ever hear of a D.N.R. order ? Point 1. Then Kevorkian, assisted suicide for the terminally Ill and other cases, Prosecution Zero.
See, right there is the greatest difference between us. You think that freedom to live as one chooses is somehow a "freedom to die", and I cannot for the life of me comprehend how anyone could ever think that way.
Total freedom means no stop lights. We sacrafice freedom every day for safety. You are just taking a extreme position when it comes to guns
