Justifiable Homicide and defensive use of guns.

Here.

p.6 --> in 1.1% of all violent crimes the victim tried to resist with firearms
p.10 --> for each justifiable homicide, there are 32 to 40 criminal homicides

Unfortunately, guns are also used for suicide. Here:

Very sad.

 

Cease exploiting the loss of lives for political purposes.

These individuals clearly had no desire to continue their existence. Their decisions should be respected and accepted, rather than second-guessed and questioned by those who have no comprehension of what they were going through, or who otherwise believe their decision-making skills to be superior.

 

Not political but philosophical. I believe Social Darwinism is evil. Especially given my condition.

 

There are those who are in arguably worse condition, both mentally and physically, who do not share the same belief.

Let us cut through the nonsense and get straight to the heat of the matter. This entire thread, like every other discussion that has been attempted on the part of yourself, is nothing more than a blatant attempt to try and argue the united states government should implement significant, far-reaching firearm-related restrictions in the name of trying to protect mentally ill individuals from themselves and their own destructive impulses.

Or it is worse than the above, and nothing more than exploitation of the suffering of mentally ill as an excuse and/or justification to implement significant, far-reaching firearm-related restrictions, and treating them as nothing more than political pawns to be utilized in the name of furthering a cause, only to be discarded once they have served their purpose and hold no further value.

 

This would be one reform which could save hundreds of thousands of lives. Implementing a Welfare System like Scandinavia would be another step in the right direction.

 

It's even worse when you consider how guns play a role in enabling domestic abuse.

 

For both men and women.

 

For everyone really.

 

Most commonly guns are used for suicide.

Fortunately my Depression is Moderate rather then severe -- I never thought of self-harm.

Does over-eating deeply fried food with tons of spices, reading Twitter, playing computer games count?

 

Self harm can come in many different forms. Can you leave those things behind if you wanted to do something else?

 

Thus making the above statement on the part of yourself, an open admission of the accusation being made against yourself as being factually correct. This entire thread is nothing more than yet another calling for the infringement, violation, and outright elimination of constitutional rights held by the people in the name of trying to save a tiny minority of the population from its own destructive impulses, while trying to force that same minority of the population go continue existing when they have demonstrated having absolutely no interest in such.

Such is blatantly obvious in the presentation of the initial post, comparing the number of lives lost to suicides, to the number of lives saved by the legal use of privately owned firearms. It is nothing more than stating that the number of lives that would be lost as a result of such endeavors, would be considered tiny in comparison and a worthwhile sacrifice to make in the name of trying to protect others from themselves. It is acknowledgement that the endeavor would lead to others being murdered, while trying to claim the number of murders would simply not be that much compared to the number of suicides that would hypothetically be prevented.

The entire presentation is nothing more than arguing that the able-bodied and minded must be sacrificed for the benefit of those that are not.

The society of the united states is incompatible with a welfare system on part with the nation of Scandinavia. It physically cannot be done and achieve the same results.

 

Is it being stated on the part of yourself that no victim of domestic abuse is able to utilize a firearm for their own defense?

 

If you feel the need to put words in my mouth, I would suggest you do citations. Guns enable domestic abuse more than any defense. Simple as that.
https://assets.speakcdn.com/assets/2497/guns_and_dv0.pdf
"States with the highest firearm ownership had a 65 percent higher incidence rate of domestic firearm homicide compared to states with lower ownership rates."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/22/us/gun-ownership-violence-statistics.html

 

How is such the fault of legal firearm owners?

 

How many were shot by legal firearm owners?

 

According to the findings of Arthur Kellermann, the majority of incidents examined related to domestic abuse and the use of firearms were limited to those who either had criminal records, or were engaged in criminal activity at the time, such as the use and distribution of illicit narcotic substances.

 

You know 70% of Americans commit crimes that could potentially warrant jail time right?

 

Each year in USA, 20,000 to 25,000 people commit suicide with firearms. This is not a tiny minority.

 

Unfortunately, the main purpose of firearms is to cause harm. Only the secondary purpose is hunting or target practice. Firearms are indeed dangerous.

 

They are not to be sacrificed. Firearm restrictions and taxes for the very rich will not harm anyone.

 

So do 100% of illegal aliens, but liberals have no problems with them. Hard to take people seriously when they can't be consistent about the rule of law...

 

Twenty five thousand individuals out of approximately three hundred and eleven million is an exceedingly tiny minority group of individuals. It is not even one one hundredth of one percent.

 

Explain precisely how these firearm-related restrictions, which have not even been defined, will serve to save any lives. Explain how they will serve to prevent homicides from being committed, when the ones that presently exist are not serving to accomplish such. Demonstrate the legitimacy of the plan being presented on the part of yourself.

 

And no one present in this or any other discussion related to firearms has ever denied such, or attempted to claim otherwise. Everyone acknowledges that firearms are indeed dangerous. But their being dangerous is not sufficient grounds for interfering with their legal ownership by individuals who are not predisposed towards harming themselves or others.

 

Yes it's sad, the solution? Parents who give a crap about their kids.