The dismissal of suicides is either callousness or shortsightedness. There is are many reasons to address preventable deaths and suicide in many cases is a preventable death. For example we could argue that seat belt laws shouldn't' be required since seat belts only really protect those who wear them while not really affecting those who choose not to. Yet our laws haven't taken that route in seat belt laws are pretty much universal in the US. If we simply allow otherwise able bodied people to just kill themselves, with any means, that will have a negative effect on the culture and becomes a public health problem. Suicides, such as with veteran or teen suicides, in many cases aren't just isolated events and if we tolerate suicides or don't address them so they become acceptable that could lead to many more.
has this been posted yet? http://www.naturalnews.com/052535_Obama_gun_control_political_opponents.html#ixzz3wlDGbCDB
I don't understand the title. Is it suggesting that the mentally ill are usually patriots, conservatives and Constitutionalists? That's rather harsh.
Address suicides all you want. I take issue with every argument in favor of gun control relying on the numbers including suicides, but all of the specific examples they choose to provide (and there are almost always specific examples provided) are murders, usually mass shootings with rifles. Murders make up about a third of gun deaths and mass shootings with rifles are statistically insignificant. You know as well as I and the people making these arguments why they choose to use those examples though. They are never going to build a broad base of support for strict gun control laws by using suicides and gangbangers killing each other as their examples. These examples are especially unhelpful in restricting magazine capacity and types of firearms (which are two of the big three regulations constantly pushed by the left), because suicides require only one bullet generally and can be done with any kind of firearm, and gangbangers generally use handguns.
True mass murders do focus the public attention in ways unlike other incidences. That said I make no apologies for bringing up mass murders because I will agree they are rare doesn't mean that they should just be ignored. The same argument could be applied to air crashes, which are very rare and deaths from air travel are almost statistically insignificant when compared to other means of travel, yet we still place a big focus on air safety. That said though you do have a point. For those like myself who have are concerned about the easy availability of firearms we should be talking about more than mass murders. For the specific issues of suicides I will again say that if you don't find this a concern that is either callousness or being short sighted. I doubt that you yourself would consider a society that tolerates or accepts suicide among those who are otherwise able to be good. One of the findings from Australia's program was a very large drop in suicides so it can be deduced that the access to firearms does factor in suicides. Again though you are trying to separate out the overall argument when this is all about the whole. We should be addressing suicides but at the same time doesn't mean we ignore addressing mass shootings. It is very clear from cases like Tuscon, Aurora, Newtown and etc. that magazine capacity and type of firearm greatly increase the lethality of any individual shooter. I will agree that these are rare incidences but at the same time just because they are rare we don't accept that for other rare but devastating things like plane crashes. It is only in the argument with guns where it seems like a valid argument is that mass shootings are just an accepted consequence of lax gun laws.
No one talks about travel deaths generally, then brings up three plane crashes and tries to pass a bunch of plane travel specific restrictions, relying on the number of people killed in auto crashes to serve as the numbers behind their argument. I take no issue with people talking about mass murders, just make clear what goes with what. 37 people were killed in the US in mass gun murders, of which there were four (as defined by Mother Jones, four or more people besides the shooter killed, relying on the FBI's definition of a mass murder). Because of this X, Y, and Z legislation should be passed to deal with mass gun murders. X number of suicides happened in 2015, verwhelmingly with handguns and a single bullet, so create Y regulation to reduce suicide by gun. Y number of individual murders where committed with firearms in 2015, overwhelmingly with handguns and 4 or fewer bullets, so create Z regulation for this. Why isn't the above done? Because though it is far more intellectually honest, it does not get the people behind those regulations the results they are after. No one is banning "assault weapons" because 37 people were killed in mass gun murders in the US in 2015. If you talk about 30,000 people dying and then talk about banning assault weapons, you can trick people into thinking they are connected though. I am by and large a libertarian. I think people should be allowed to kill themselves if they so choose. I don't think we should make it more difficult for them. Whether that means old and sick people taking fatal doses of medication or depressed people eating the gun, that is their personal choice. We should not restrict everyone's freedoms simply because some people will use that freedom to kill themselves. I hate what they have done to the observation deck of the Empire State Building, for example. Make the whole argument. Just don't use stats from column A to justify regulations relating only to column B.
That depends on your point of view, some think the big brother liberal idea of what America should be is pretty ****ed up and the Libertarian version is the sane choice with its emphasis on individual choice and personal freedom over the notion of "the greater good".
Real definition of gun control. Always treat a gun as if it were loaded Always keep your gun pointed in a safe direction Always keep your finger off the trigger and out of the trigger guard until ready to shoot Know your target and what's beyond it Proper Storage Proper maintenance Grip Stance Aim Breath Control Trigger Squeeze Follow Through
http://www.9news.com/story/news/201...ring-robbery-suspect-issued-summons/78596484/ PD: Bystander took law into own hands KUSA - Aurora Police say a bystander to a robbery who “may have tried to do the right thing” may be in hot water. Around 7:30 p.m. Saturday, police say a masked man entered a Subway in the 15000 block of East Iliff Avenue -- near South Chambers Road -- and demanded money from a woman who worked there. Police say the suspect hit the woman and made off with an undisclosed amount of cash. The employee had minor injuries. As the suspect was making his getaway, police say an armed bystander, identified as Avery Nelson, started to chase the suspect, following him from the Subway and into the street. As Nelson was chasing the suspect, police say he pulled out and gun and fired two warning shots in the air, followed by a few additional shots that struck the suspect's car. “When you fire rounds into the air you have no clue where those rounds may end up and if they'll strike anybody,” Aurora Police Sgt. Chris Amsler said. Amsler said by firing the shots, Nelson inadvertently put the public in danger. “Who knows where those rounds may have ended up," he said. Nelson was issued a summons and will have to appear in court for reckless endangerment and the firing of a weapon. Amsler says in similar situations it's more important for a bystander to be a good witness rather than taking the law into their own hands. “Get a good description of the suspect, the suspects’ vehicle and then wait for police to respond and provide that information to us," he said. Police say the suspect who robbed the Subway store has yet to be found, however his car was located near South Joplin Way and South Idalia Street.
I think I'd support these rules. I'd also like to limit the amount of ammunition you can buy at once. I'd like to see private sales go away or be regulated.
