The God Damned Gun Control Thread

[Darth Crater]

Your gun doesn't magically switch from "available" when you want to defend yourself to "unavailable" when you become depressed.

[mrjamwin]

Remove by force? No, I didn't say that. I'm just saying that maybe if you value your family's lives you shouldn't own one in the first place. Particularly since, as I posted last page, firearms do increase the number of successful suicides. Often, without such a quick and easy way, there will be enough time for the immediate urge to pass. Which means it's more likely they can survive and get treated.

Feel free to keep failing to support your position at all, Jamwin.

Even though I was just poking fun. I have justified all my positions whether or not you agreed to them. Like Haas said maybe I own a gun to keep my family members alive and protected and as a responsible gun owner I do take measures to make sure that they are probably stored and inaccessible to those that I don't want to have access to. What I find interesting is that the issue with gun control has nothing to do with the issue of successful suicides and you're bringing in a totally different argument into the discussion. If someone want to truly commit suicide it isn't going to er how they do it. Yes guns only make it more successful because it's easier and quick and the person committing suicide surely doesn't want a failed suicide due to the painful implications afterwards. But control is not going to stop suicides any more than it will stop criminal behavior.

[haasd0gg]

probably one belonging to an adult relative

So if the weapon properly secured, this holds absolutely no water.
If you're talking about the guns owner using it on his/herself, then you are talking about an adult making their own decision. Some people have perfectly valid reasons for not wanting to live. Is that another decision that shouldn't be left to the individual?

[mrjamwin]

So Crater here are some questions for you. Why is it that you want to take the right away from someone who wants to kill themselves? How do you know that all people who want to kill themselves have mental issues?

[Darth Crater]

probably one belonging to an adult relative

So if the weapon properly secured, this holds absolutely no water.
If you're talking about the guns owner using it on his/herself, then you are talking about an adult making their own decision. Some people have perfectly valid reasons for not wanting to live. Is that another decision that shouldn't be left to the individual?

Absolutely, if the weapon is properly secured. This also means that it's not in reach for, say, defending yourself from a home invasion.

And I'm talking about minors here. Do you really want to insist that teenagers have a right to commit suicide? Would you allow your teenager to?

Jamwin - see my post at the top of page 45. Access to guns definitely correlates with higher suicide rates. Mainly because suicidal thoughts aren't simple or binary, making it more difficult has a huge impact.

[haasd0gg]

Are we talking about teenagers or not? If my gun is in a barometric safe or strapped to my waist, it is certainly available for self defense and not to anyone else, much less a child.
I also specifically said adult... christ on a stick, man... I knew better than to bother, but I did anyway.
I'm sure everyone else understood what both of us said just fine.

[mrjamwin]

probably one belonging to an adult relative

So if the weapon properly secured, this holds absolutely no water.
If you're talking about the guns owner using it on his/herself, then you are talking about an adult making their own decision. Some people have perfectly valid reasons for not wanting to live. Is that another decision that shouldn't be left to the individual?

Absolutely, if the weapon is properly secured. This also means that it's not in reach for, say, defending yourself from a home invasion.

And I'm talking about minors here. Do you really want to insist that teenagers have a right to commit suicide? Would you allow your teenager to?
Jamwin - see my post at the top of page 45. Access to guns definitely correlates with higher suicide rates. Mainly because suicidal thoughts aren't simple or binary, making it more difficult has a huge impact.

We let them drive don't we? Also you never made a distinction as to whether the suicide victims were teenagers or not. Again the point which you ignored was that if someone wants to truly commit suicide then they're going to whether they have a gun or not.

[Col. Hstar]

I think it's a separate issue as to people wanting to commit suicide, and whether guns make it easier. Like what was said before, if someone is depressed and mentally at that point already, they're going to find a way to kill themselves. The danger element that guns add (IMO) is the person who is so depressed and unstable that instead of only committing suicide, they feel the need to take other people with them. In this instance a gun would be their weapon of choice since it "increases the body count" or it's more efficient at getting back at the people they want to hurt before ending themselves. I'm really not trying to be callous about it, but that's the nature of the discussion.

In this case it would fall back under the category of a mentally unstable person who needs medical assistance. You can't depend on someone to get that assistance themselves, let alone pay for it. So where can that help come from??

I've yet to here from a pro gun person's perspective on the idea of implementing license and registration protocols much the same way they are issued for cars. Then using those funds for programs that reduce gun violence, including medical assistance for people who are found to be mentally unstable. To me it's a fair and balanced way to deal with the problem.

[Dad]

Here comes some more logic and facts. It may sting a bit.

At the time that the constitution and bill of rights were drafted, the vernacular and phrasing were nothing like they are today. Education was not as available and those who were educated were well educated. Ever read a book from that era?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I've seen some try to twist this to mean you only have that right if you are part of a "well regulated militia". A militia is made up of, and organized by, non military citizens. We have the right to form militias at any time we want. Try to form one that does not permit or use firearms. Doesn't make much sense, does it? Do you think any existing militia today would accept you if you were unarmed?

This is how the second amendment was thought through. Our founding fathers were some of the most well educated people of their time. They knew then that an invasion by a foreign country would largely be deterred by a heavily armed population. They foresaw threats to our borders as they had in their time. Then, it was native americans and the british. Today it is heroin through Canada and illegal immigrants and drug gangs from Mexico. They planned that, as in their time, a militia was the first, best line of defense against small border incursions. They were also well aware that "a more perfect union" was just as wide open to corruption and injustice as any other form of government that has ever existed, ever.

They knew goddamned well that "we the people" had the right to defend ourselves from anyone or anything that would seek do do us harm, steal our property or attempt to take our liberty.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

Here comes some more logic and facts. It may sting a bit.

At the time that the constitution and bill of rights were drafted, the vernacular and phrasing were nothing like they are today. Education was not as available and those who were educated were well educated. Ever read a book from that era?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I've seen some try to twist this to mean you only have that right if you are part of a "well regulated militia". A militia is made up of, and organized by, non military citizens. We have the right to form militias at any time we want. Try to form one that does not permit or use firearms. Doesn't make much sense, does it? Do you think any existing militia today would accept you if you were unarmed?

This is how the second amendment was thought through. Our founding fathers were some of the most well educated people of their time. They knew then that an invasion by a foreign country would largely be deterred by a heavily armed population. They foresaw threats to our borders as they had in their time. Then, it was native americans and the british. Today it is heroin through Canada and illegal immigrants and drug gangs from Mexico. They planned that, as in their time, a militia was the first, best line of defense against small border incursions. They were also well aware that "a more perfect union" was just as wide open to corruption and injustice as any other form of government that has ever existed, ever.

They knew goddamned well that "we the people" had the right to defend ourselves from anyone or anything that would seek do do us harm, steal our property or attempt to take our liberty.

It is easiest to seize liberty when the population is unaware of the process. Though guns may have once been used for such purposes as you are describing, the United States has not fought a war on its own territory in nearly two hundred years. It may seem irrelevant, but I take issue with your stance on education. Education is a right; knowing how to think protects you from deception and allows you to achieve immeasurable goals.

I defend the people's right to keep and bear arms, despite the fact that it may merely be a symbolic gesture. This issue is controversial, but I think I side with the conservatives here - at least partly. That said, I am reasonable enough to accept that we need a discussion on how to address the issues we currently face. Background checks, waiting periods, training sessions, etc. all contribute to this, and if we can compromise on an issue that both sides feel equally strongly about, I think it says something about our nation's ingenuity.