Justifiable Homicide and defensive use of guns.

At least Society should take steps to reduce Suicide and murder -- by regulating guns and providing food, shelter, and medical care to all in need. Free psychiatric treatment would greatly help millions of people.

 

I am neither a Leftist nor a Rightist. Both sides have their flaws. Social Darwinism is a great evil.

 

In reality, very few Muslims are terrorists.

 

Firearms are already significantly regulated in the united states.

In short, simple, uncomplicated terms, what is being called for on the part of yourself is for the united states to become like the nation of Venezuela. It did and offered all of the above to its people and much more. Then as a result of all those free goods and services to the people, the nation became bankrupt and now they have nothing. No food, no running water, no electricity, no medicine, no healthcare, no societal safety net for those in need, unending violence, and a government murdering its own people to maintain its own power.

 

Very few terrorists are not muslim, however.

 

My ideal is Canada and Scandinavia. Not Venezuela.

I emigrated out of USSR in 1983. Both USSR in 1980s and modern USA have shortcomings and advantages.

 

US Military killed about 3 million civilians in Korea and Vietnam wars combined. That is much more then the number of victims of terrorism.

 

How many victims is enough? How many would constitute too many? What is the perfect number that is being sought?

 

I do not know.

I would oppose banning cars -- they are 29 times safer then motorcycles.

I would oppose banning offensive speech, action movies, or video games -- they do cause casualties, but far less then guns.

I do not know where the cutoff between reasonably and unreasonably dangerous items is.

 

Ideals do not exist in the real world.

Then emigrate to the nation of Canada, rather than wasting decades calling for the united states to become something it is not.

 

Pray tell, exactly what is the cutoff of constitutional rights? When is one not allowed to legally exercise their constitutional rights? What is the maximum allowable exercising of constitutional rights in a given year before an individual has exceeded their fair quota and must wait for the next calendar period to pass?

 

I do not know. I only know that 572,000 lives lost to guns in USA 1999-2016 are way too many.

 

In reality, very few ARs are used in mass shootings.

 

It was a general statement not necessarily aimed at you.

 

Then do not presume to speak for others, or otherwise attempt to educate others on what they should feel obligated to go about doing.

With the majority of which are acts of suicide. Meaning that they do not count, as firearms did not cause their deaths to come to pass, anymore than the availability of rope caused individuals to hang themselves.

What is not understood on the part of yourself, is the united states constitution specifically forbids what is being called for on the part of yourself. The ninth amendment of the united states constitution specifically addresses such. The enumeration of certain rights shall not be used to deny or disparage other constitutional rights held by the people.

the perceived sufferings of the mentally ill due to the availability of firearms, cannot legally be used as grounds for restricting legal firearms access to those that are not mentally ill, and are not consumed with thoughts, desires, and impulses of ending their own existence. Such is ultimately the long and short of the matter, so cease continuing with a failed line of discussion.

Whether or not it is liked, the simple truth of the real world is that society owes the individual absolutely nothing, regardless of their personal circumstances and situation. The mentally ill are not automatically owed any greater level of concern than the mentally healthy. Simply because some are willing to provide it does not mean it is the natural order of things. Social darwinism is how the real world works, has worked, and will continue to work. Those who cannot accept such as being the reality of the situation have little recourse but to either do so or die while waiting to be taken care of like infantile children for the duration of their natural lives.

 

The Laws are mostly bendable. If a Large Majority of US Population will take a stand against the Second Amendment, Constitution will be bent under the weight of Public Opinion. I do not know what can be done, but loss of 572,000 lives in 1999-2016 is a great tragedy.

 

Humans have innate value. Weapons have almost no value.

 

When they are there to protect me or my family, they have far greater value then their initial cost.

 

The united states constitution is not, however.

In theory. But not in practice. A constitutional convention is hardly the easiest thing to organize, as it requires the cooperation of thirty eight states all working together for a common goal. In this partisan era where no one wishes to work together, the process for amending the constitution may as well simply not exist at all.

Then cease talking about how restricting firearms would serve to prevent suicides from being committed.

Overdose-related deaths from illicit narcotic substances resulted in over seventy thousand deaths during the last year such data is available, despite such substances being illegal at both the federal and state level.

The number of deaths that can be attributed to medical malpractice in the united states are anywhere between two hundred and fifty thousand, to four hundred and forty thousand, all because of easily preventable causes and careless complications.

There are far more pressing, far more important matters for the united states to address, than a minute handful of individuals who are simply tired of living and have decided to end their own existence.

 

Not when they are committing harm to others, however. Then they have no value whatsoever.

Except for when they do, such as when an individual is being victimized and harmed by another. Then the weapon holds more value than anything else in the world.

 

Even the worst criminals in Canada are treated humanely. They have rights and they do defend these rights in courts.

PS. Judaism helps me avoid addiction to Social Media -- I am online 24/6 rather then 24/7.

 

The vast majority of weapon owners never use these weapons to protect anyone.

Unfortunately, many people mistake the World and Action Movies.

 

I agree 100%. All people in need of help must be helped. People who have mental problems are also likely to misuse drugs.

Unfortunately helping people in need would imply more taxes for millionaires and billionaires. They would not suffer much by giving up some luxury.

 

The vast majority are also never used in a crime.
https://reason.com/2015/03/09/how-to-count-the-defensive-use-of-guns/

 

The united states is not the nation of Canada. How the nation of Canada chooses to conduct its own affairs has no more bearing or relevancy to discussion of matters in the united states, than do the dealings of the nation of Australia or the nation of Germany.

This point has been made multiple times across multiple discussions, and yet this line of discussion is still persisted with as if it held any relevancy or value. It does not. The nation of Canada is immaterial in a discussion pertaining to maters in the united states.

If such a line of discussion is brought up once again, both it and yourself will be reported to the forum staff as a violation of established forum guidelines.