Is the 'right to bear arms' unlimited?

No! For most people it is an insurmountable barrier.

 

Psychologists disagree with you, including the ones employed by the military. Look it up.

 

It's easy access to rope that accounts for those 14,000 suicides, right?

Yes, they are. Guess what - that doesn't matter with regards to the right to keep and bear arms.[/QUOTE]

 

Can you show a link to the white paper on this topic?

 

I doubt that seriously it would probably only save a small number. We don't know why some people are depressed enough to commit suicide psychological help doesn't help. It's like any other panacea it is a fiction therapy is just somebody listening to you that's all it is. We shouldn't make it political policy to pay these scam artists any more than we should provide chiropractic or voodoo medicine for people.
You should really study psychology and learn that it's more about observing than it is intervening.

 

Gosh, most people can't shoot someone else, either.

 

Psychologist disagree with each other. The study of human behavior is not a hard science.

 

Yes they do. That's why we give them to soldiers instead of knives. If our soldiers went into battle armed with knives and the enemy had guns, they'd kill all our guys.

And if you write an essay on an old typewriter, it is just as written as if you write it on a modern computer. But modern computers are better tools and let you work faster and more effectively. That's why we have them instead of old typewriters.

So? More people die while driving with their eyes open than driving with their eyes shut. It doesn't not follow that it's more dangerous to drive with eyes open than eyes shut.

 

Regardless of whether they have a gun or a knife. Thank you for proving my point

 

There's pretty good consensus on this one. You can look up the research for yourself. Psychologists aren't perfect, but they are the best experts we have.

 

"More dangerous" isn't a concept that applies to the right protected by the Second Amendment.

 

Except our best experts disagree with you and say it's generally harder to kill with a knife. That doesn't mean they are right, but they are better authorities than you.

 

What do these same experts say about the willingness of the average person to shoot someone?

 

Who said they aren't protected? I said that they are more effective tools for killing than ropes or knives, which is why we give them to our soldiers instead of ropes and knives. If the enemy went into battle with guns and we had only knives, they would kill us all because of their superior weapons.

 

It's low, at least compared to what you see in films. It's higher than their willingness to kill in more personal ways, like with a knife, and lower than their willingness to kill in less personal ways, such as with artillery.

It was a huge shock to the US army when they discovered just how many of the soldiers in WWII had never fired their weapon in battle. They've put in a lot of work since then into training soldiers to be more psychologically ready to kill.

 

no they don't neither knives nor guns kill at all they're just hunks of metal. We give soldiers knives also. We train soldiers how to use the weapon to kill the soldier does the killing not the gun.
if the guns did The killing we wouldn't have soldiers we just have guns flying around fighting our wars for us

But to get to the point if someone kills you with a knife you're no less dead than if someone kills you with a gun. So they're both equally effective the only difference between the two is one has a range one is a melee weapon

you can't type any faster on a computer than you can on a typewriter the words per minute you type are the words per minute you type doesn't matter what the keyboards connected to.

I still holding my position that guns aren't dangerous I can be in a room for 25 years with a gun and be in no danger. It just sits there. It is nearly a hunk of metal. The only time it ever becomes dangerous is if somebody picks it up and loads it so the thing that's dangerous in that situation is other people not the firearm.

 

They aren't more effective tools for killing. That is a poor argument and I already pointed out why.

if someone kills you with a knife you're not any less dead than if someone kills you with a gun.

Guns are more precise they are arranged weapon versus a melee weapon.

these things are weapons the idea behind a weapon is that they aren't dangerous the person wielding it is.

 

What experts, experts in combat? if experts in combat are telling you a gun is far more effective at killing than a knife then don't listen to those idiots cuz they're not experts.

A knife is far more deadly in melee range. With one swipe a person can put a cut across somebody's entire body you can't do that with a gun.

So I doubt you actually consulted any experts or even know any. You're just trying to give false gravitas to your claims.

 

Psychologists aren't experts in combat. So they don't have foggiest idea. They are no more experts in combat than a mechanic is an expert in psychology.

 

this explains a very base concept of tactical positions. I would much rather defend myself at a distance where my attacker is not capable of causing me harm. If they're close enough for me to stop them with a knife they're close enough to do me bodily injury.

This doesn't make a knife less deadly it just makes melee combat more dangerous to both people involved.

makes sense it's harder to pull the trigger against someone who's far away from and not posing a direct threat. They also gave soldiers trench knives and those days and they still give soldiers knives just as much as they give them guns earlier even, because those weapons are extremely effective.

 

It's not even accurate. A gun isn't dangerous at all. I've lived in a house with multiple guns and honestly they just sat there. They have never once jumped up loaded themselves flown into the room and fired at me. You're actually extremely safe that's the reason why we manufacture them why we issue them to our military.

It is the people wielding them that can be dangerous.

 

There isn't an object in the world that doesn't enable harm. Like I said, focusing on objects does nothing to reduce harm. Doesn't matter if its a gun or a bat or a knife or any other object. All that it does is reduce harm from THAT object. The cause still exists. And since the cause still exists, harm will still come to pass.

 

This has nothing to do with Trump or the election.

 

More cars, more car violence. More bats, more bat violence. More knives, more knife violence. Guns are not the cause of violence. Getting rid of guns won't stop the violence. Getting rid of bats will not stop the violence. Getting rid of knives will not stop the violence. Focusing on objects does nothing to reduce the cause of violence.

 

The fact that certain items are more dangerous than others does not change the underlying causes of violence. Focus on the underlying causes. Its harder to do because as you say "nothing alone makes people commit any crime." Which is why focusing on the underlying causes is harder. But there is one thing that is 100% for certain, guns are not the cause of any crime. Just like N. Korea having nukes does not mean that the cause of them using them (if they are ever used) is due to the nuke. If you want to make sure that they don't use a nuke then you focus on why they feel the need to use the nukes. Before they use the nukes. Do that and they won't use the nukes, even if they have them.