Research into suicide does not support ypur claim. Guns make suicide attempts much more lethal Gun owners and their families are much more likely to kill themselves than are non-gun-owners. A 2008 study by Miller and David Hemenway, HICRC director and author of the book Private Guns, Public Health, found that rates of firearm suicides in states with the highest rates of gun ownership are 3.7 times higher for men and 7.9 times higher for women, compared with states with the lowest gun ownership—though the rates of non-firearm suicides are about the same. A gun in the home raises the suicide risk for everyone: gun owner, spouse and children alike.
Here is what they fail to point out.... More than half of all suicides in the US are non firearm related. That is proof that if someone wants to kill themselves, they do not need a gun. Also, women rarely use guns to commit suicide, they seem to prefer less messy methods, pills, hanging, poisoning, slitting wrists... etc. "As well, it should be noted that while suicide by firearms and poisoning has declined, suicide by suffocation, usually hanging, increased, making one in four suicides in both men and women attributable to strangulation. Suicide by suffocation is more deliberate than suicide by poison, which is the usual method chosen by women. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/26/suicide-rate-rising-american-women-cdc-report
Just because suicide happens without a gun does not mean that having a gun does not make it MUCH easier. The research is clear on this. Ask yourself....Are you more likely to do something if it is easy, painless and 100% effective?
This is something you would easily expect to hear in the corridors of power in Pyongyang. It is something you would never hope to hear in the halls of Washington. Necessity is always the rallying cry of dictators and despots. I believe this is a contemptuous view of individual rightsone held by people who believe the desire to do something immediately provides the moral power to do it. It does not view constitutional rights as bastions of liberty, but rather as annoying obstacles standing in the way of progress. Things to be evaded rather than respected. Vegas, Im beginning to think the foundation of all of our disagreements is our radically divergent views on constitutional rights.
The freedom to be dead or for our loved ones to be dead is not freedom. It is the slavery of a lifetime of sadness.
Over 50 percent of those that commit suicide didn't agree with you. I didn't say that it didn't make it easier, I said that is proof that if someone wants to kill themselves, they do not need a gun.
You're right, he has has declared himself to be on the side or collective rights rather than individual rights. I believe it is typical of the gun banner vs 2nd amendment supporter argument.
If someone wants anything they will get it or try to do it. That does not mean we do not try to secure those items and in some cases make it very difficult for them to get those items. - - - Updated - - - We are all on the side of collective rights and individual rights. Evereytime you stop at a stop sign you abandon your individual right and give in to the collective right. Don't try to frame this as an all or nothing fight. You would not want to live in a country where only individual rights counted.
Then how do you explain under the Congressional Enumerated Powers the clear wording they have the authority to call up the militia, arm and train the militia, assign the militia to existing military forces and further set structure and regulation of the land and sea forces which would include the militia and set the regulations for the states appointment of officers to the militia? It seems pretty damned clear to me the militia is there at the discretion of the Congress and they did regulate it under the Militia Act and fortunately was liberal in who is in the militia. They could have under their authority limit it a lot and it would have been 100% Constitutional for example you can only be in a militia funded for, training provided by and under an organizational structure inside of a state government or Federal organ for example a Department of Homeland Security militia if one was made. They didn't so be grateful. And the government clearly can decide what weapons are approved for the militia since that is all under the control of Congress regardless of what the 2nd Amendment says.
You are demonstrating what is known in the world of psychology as projection. You are projecting your own hostility at being disrespected onto myself, because you cannot admit your own frustrations over your supposed training and schooling being disregarded by those who favor rationality, and common sense far more than the opinions of those who specialize in an area of science that is largely guesswork and hypothesis. Except no such standard exists, nor can be made to exist. Why should anyone have to tolerate something that basic common sense and conventional wisdom says will not work under any circumstances? Should you as a psychological health provider be required to be overseen by an independent investigator to determine whether or not you are molesting your patients? Would you object to such a requirement coming about if someone determined it to be necessary? And how would you insure that they maintain this training after they have acquired their firearm? Anyone can demonstrate responsibility over a short period of time if they want a reward, but it means nothing if they disregard it all a moment after getting what they want.
Thank you for the amateur psychological assessment and I will give it all the value it deserves. LOL Even long time pro second amendment people agree training helps make gun owners better able to handle the responsibility of a gun. There is no logical argument against it. And this is where your frustration comes from
Then you have said all that you have to say on this matter. You have nothing more to contribute, as you have already stated that you disregard the significance of the united states constitution. There is not one more thing you could possibly add that has any legitimacy to this discussion.
Thank you for your opinion. I disagree with your assessment and will continue to participate in this forum despite your obvious frustration
And now you are addressing another in a dismissive, condescending attitude, indicating that you do not care for what is being said simply because you do not agree with it, and do not wish to address the statement. Show where it has been stated, and by whom such was stated. And once you have shown that, demonstrate where individuals who support the second amendment have said anything even remotely close to suggesting that training should be made mandatory, and firearms should be prohibited to those that have not sought out training. Logical arguments against making firearms training mandatory has indeed been presented. However you have dismissed concerns out of hand without effectively addressing the points that have been raised. Except you cannot demonstrate any aforementioned frustration actually being demonstrated, except on the part of yourself being rebuked by those with significantly more knowledge than you yourself have.
For what purpose? So you can continue addressing an audience that not care for what you have to say? So that you can continue telling them that their constitution is of no importance to you and your position? So that they can continue tearing your position apart piece by piece, and demonstrating with far greater articulation than yourself, just why they do not have any regard for you and your supposed twenty five years of experience in the psychological field?
Wow you are clearly frustrated. Your arguments have crumbled and now the attacks get more personal. Its ok. I am used to it. Let me know when you want to engage in honest and open debate again. I will be right here.
You have demonstrated no willingness for an open, honest, and legitimate debate. Earlier you were pressed for documented proof that police officers are responsible for every round of ammunition they discharge in the line of duty. Where is your proof that such is the standard, when news in the united states reports the opposite? Where is your refutation for the example of police officers discharging more than one hundred rounds in pursuit of a victim of mistaken identity, and the attorney general for the state determining that they will face no charges because they were victims of poor training standards on the use of deadly force?
You are making my case. The DA completed a full investigation in that matter and made a conclusion based on law. If you claim he made a conclusion for some other reason then present your evidence. In detail please. We live in a country where there is rule of law. If you are suggesting that DA is involved in a coverup then that is a serious crime. You need to present enough evidence that would satisfy a judge in a criminal court. Present your case.
The case has already been presented that police officers are not held accountable for every single round of ammunition discharged in the course of their duties. You have argued that they are, it was proven that they are not. It is now your obligation to present evidence that police officers are indeed responsible for every round of ammunition they discharge in the course of their duties, and that they are indeed fired for improper firearms handling.
All that has been proven is that the DA made a full investigation and came up with a perfectly legal finding. Do you have evidence of anything else? And this happens everytime a police officer fires his weapon. If you are suggesting there is a nationwide conspiracy to protect cops you must present the evidence for it. You have presented none so your argument fails.
No suggestion pertaining to a conspiracy has been made. Only that you have no actual proof to demonstrate that police officers are held responsible for every round discharged in the course of duty, or that any police officer has ever lost their employment over reckless or negligent handling of a firearm. Despite your claim that this is the case, there is no evidence that actually suggests such is the case. We have your word but little more. Instead we have proof that you are incorrect. http://thefreethoughtproject.com/daycare-cop-shoots-bullet-charged/ Cuyahoga Falls, OH — Authorities are only ‘contemplating’ criminal charges against an East Cleveland police officer today after he discharged his weapon sending a bullet hurling into a day care center. The staff and children at the KinderCare Learning center were likely terrified when a bullet came blasting through the fence and lodged into the wall of the school around 3:35 pm on Tuesday. Police have refused to release the name of the officer who negligently discharged his firearm. Authorities did, however, note that the officer was unloading his 9mm Glock inside his home, directly behind the daycare, when it ‘accidentally’ discharged. Up until that point, the staff and parents of the children at KinderCare probably thought that their children were safer being neighbors with a police officer. Despite the officer clearly admitting to committing the misdemeanor offense of discharging a firearm within city limits, police have yet to charge him. “Right now our law department has it and they are reviewing it to see if there should be any charges,” Police Chief Jack Davis said Wednesday morning. “It was a very unfortunate incident for the school, as well as him,” he added. Outside of skating out of the misdemeanor charge so far, this officer also seems to be avoiding the felony offense of discharging a weapon in a gun-free school zone. Imagine for a moment that you were cleaning your pistol and all of the sudden, you accidentally squeeze off a round sending the deadly projectile through the wall of a daycare center, in a gun-free zone. There are two possible scenarios that would take place; the first one being that a SWAT team responds and you are killed. The second, less lethal result would be your inevitable arrest and charges of public endangerment, unlawful discharge, illegal use of a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon, terrorism, or a myriad of other charges associated with sending a deadly projectile hurling through walls and near the heads of innocent people. You would immediately be facing fines, jail time, probation, and firearms restrictions. However, if you are a government agent who’s trusted with carrying a deadly weapon into places others cannot, you needn’t worry about any of those repercussions as this case will likely prove. Despite the officer clearly admitting to committing the misdemeanor offense of discharging a firearm within city limits, police have yet to charge him. “Right now our law department has it and they are reviewing it to see if there should be any charges,” Police Chief Jack Davis said Wednesday morning. “It was a very unfortunate incident for the school, as well as him,” he added. Outside of skating out of the misdemeanor charge so far, this officer also seems to be avoiding the felony offense of discharging a weapon in a gun-free school zone. Imagine for a moment that you were cleaning your pistol and all of the sudden, you accidentally squeeze off a round sending the deadly projectile through the wall of a daycare center, in a gun-free zone. There are two possible scenarios that would take place; the first one being that a SWAT team responds and you are killed. The second, less lethal result would be your inevitable arrest and charges of public endangerment, unlawful discharge, illegal use of a firearm, assault with a deadly weapon, terrorism, or a myriad of other charges associated with sending a deadly projectile hurling through walls and near the heads of innocent people. You would immediately be facing fines, jail time, probation, and firearms restrictions. However, if you are a government agent who’s trusted with carrying a deadly weapon into places others cannot, you needn’t worry about any of those repercussions as this case will likely prove. Meanwhile in the united stats we see examples of police officers allowing their firearms to be stolen right out of their motor vehicles, or actually leaving them laying around where anyone can get them, and facing no consequences for such. http://mimesislaw.com/fault-lines/cops-lose-their-guns-so-take-them-away/10873 Southern California police agencies regularly lose track of all manner of firearms, from high-powered rifles and grenade launchers to standard service handguns – weapons that often wind up on the street. An Orange County Register investigation of 134 state and local police agencies from Kern County to the Mexican border found that over the past five years at least 329 firearms were lost by or stolen from law enforcement agencies. Dozens of these weapons wound up in the hands of criminals – and some were involved in crimes. In Northern California, a missing police gun was used in a suspected murder. But the number of guns known to be missing or stolen is almost certainly a fraction of the actual number that have made the jump from police agency to street. Not every department audits its weaponry. If agencies performed such audits, they’d find they were missing more guns. That was the case at one of the biggest police agencies in the country. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, following a request by the Register, assembled a team of nearly two dozen employees to track through thousands of files on gun location and gun assignments. The research found that at least 103 L.A. County Sheriff’s Department guns, ranging from service handguns to shotguns, were lost or stolen over the past five years. A spokesperson said the agency didn’t previously know how many guns were missing, and hadn’t recently conducted a centralized count of its service handguns. The missing weapons are a tiny portion of the department’s 20,000-gun arsenal.
Then present your own evidence to conclusively disprove that police officers are not held responsible when they misuse their firearms.
You have that backwards....officers are held responsible when they misuse their firearms. You do know that there are cops now in prison for misusing their firearms....don't you?
