Justifiable Homicide and defensive use of guns.

Guns aren't going anywhere. People will just have to seek help, maybe if they are suicidal they shouldn't keep a gun and ammo. But if they choose to that isn't because of the gun.

 

Then such is ultimately their decision to make, and theirs alone. Cease trying to impose the will of yourself onto others.

It has already been stated on the part of yourself that the notion of ending your own existence has never been contemplated. Meaning it is simply not possible for yourself to understand the position of others who have considered such and wish to do such.

 

As opposed to what commonly available commodity sold on the private market? What is available to the public that cannot be used in tragic ways? Be sure to specify rather than talking in vague generalities.

 

Only because you would not actually be tasked with a contributor who has to work for the benefit of others, but who would be receiving said benefits free of charge.

 

All people vote for Laws which impose will on all others and themselves. Any Society has laws.

 

Most cars and other products are rarely used for destructive ends.

 

Some sort of selfish motif exists in both supporters and opponents of Welfare State. I would appreciate getting about $20 K per year for my disability.

A millionaire making $2 M per year may have to pay extra $400 K per year due to tax increase. But millionaires would still have luxury.

 

Most firearms are rarely used for destructive ends.

 

You aren’t entitled to $20k as you are perfectly capable of earning a living. Or else you wouldn’t be able to post on an online debate forum.

 

But too many are. Moreover, they are not as needed as cars.

 

Under current Laws I am not -- just hypothesizing.

 

not anywhere near as much as cars.

They are needed more than cars.

 

Has nothing to do with the law. You are perfectly capable of earning a living, and have no right to demand others subsidize you because you refuse to support yourself.

 

Neither me nor 44 million people with Mental Disability living in USA.

 

If you can post and participate in an online debate forum you can hold a job and support yourself. You have no right to take my money because you don’t feel like working. I won’t let you.

 

No. Why can I post? -- because I have Moderate Disability rather then Severe Disability.

 

Which shows you are capable of earning a living and supporting yourself, so you won’t be getting any money from me.

 

The number of deaths attributed to motor vehicles are equal to or greater than the number of deaths attributed to firearms. To say nothing of the amount of pollution they directly contribute to, and whatever effect they have related to the discussion of climate change. But all of these deaths are considered to be socially acceptable, because forcing individuals to use alternative means of transportation to save those lives is considered too inconvenient to be acceptable.

 

The obvious question of "so what?" must be asked with regard to the above. What ultimate, meaningful difference, does such actually make?

 

Definitely. Living without cars would be much much more difficult then living without guns.

I would not oppose banning motorcycles.

 

And yet motor vehicles serve to facilitate far more crimes than firearms.

 

That is because most of the time when a gun is used to stop a criminal it does not result in a justifiable homicide, most of the time a shot is not fired, the criminal gives up when they are faced with a would be victim whose armed.

 

That is a tiny minority when compared to the roughly 100 million people in the USA who legally own guns.

 

That depends on the firearm. The .30-06 round was created for hunting medium to large game, not for harming people.

 

I would. I would oppose banning motorcycles just like I oppose banning guns.