What happens if I’m not interested in reducing one thing compared to an irrelevant thing?
Lumping suicide with other causes is asinine.
Yes, I agree, which I certainly agree we have too many murders here in America, the solution to unwanted suicide is better mental health programs, not less guns.
I dont want people driving into oncoming traffic, suicide by police ,or standing in front of a train to finish it.
As long as they have thought it thru and been counseled- well it’s their right.
Part of it is it is not written that ‘the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed’ - which would be cut and dry clear, but that is tied to a ideal that it has to due with the security of a free state and requires a well regulated militia. So like the great questions of humanity, this one is not cut and dry. Compare and contrast to the first which does not introduce such as strange philosophical statement as a condition of the right.
And that philosophical statement is part of the amendment itself, which opens it up to trying to figure out how the hell that first part of the amendment bears on the second as you just can’t ignore that first part and honestly enforce the second, for as soon as you ignore the first part you negate the reason to follow the second part. So they must be take together, and it is not a right to keep and bare arms, but a certain condition where the right to keep and bare arms must be met.
None of this is true after Heller. Have you read it? The prefatory clause does not limit the operative clause.
No, it’s not brilliant at all. It’s simplicity itself. You don’t have to get rid of ALL guns for that to happen, just a whole lot of them. Handguns, for instance. How about we start with those.
Handguns are indeed the #1 gun used by criminals. But the 2nd Ad stands in your way.
And of course it would cost billions.
I honk the Democratic Party should totally campaign on this issue. Good luck!
I do admire the audacity of the gun lobby in inventing a new structure of grammatical rules specifically for one purpose, that of dismissing an inconvenient part. Anywhere else, a subordinate clause does indeed modify the main clause. That’s what it’s for.
Why “your” and not “our”? :dubious:
Know what else costs billions or more and yet we believe we have to do it anyway? Lots. No excuses.
Why would you not be interested in helping preserve human life? Please explain the value system that lets you make that statement.
While seemingly true in legal terms, in practice that clause does seem to still carry weight. If it didn’t the restrictions would be stuck down as the ‘operative clause’ is crystal clear.
When talking about the overall societal impact of guns, the fact that they are a quick, easy, and disturbingly effective method of taking one’s own life* is not only not a factor to be ignored, it may be the single most important factor due to the sheer number of people who die at their own hands with the help of a gun.
*(And given that the vast majority of people who survive a suicide attempt regret it, and that methods of suicide are not fungible, and all the other shit we already know about suicide which I felt might be important to bring up here - seriously, people who don’t know much about the state of evidence regarding guns and suicides should read up before tackling the issue…)
Not seemingly, actually true in legal terms. As for restrictions that would be struck down - give it time. It takes a while to get to SCOTUS.
Suicide is certainly a very serious issue, and should not be ignored. But the causes of and solutions to mitigate suicide are wholly different than those aimed at other gun related problems. Gun control advocacy tends to conflate suicide with other items because it inflates numbers. Anyone who groups together suicide and let’s say, crime, when talking about issues with guns either doesn’t know what they are talking about or is being misleading.
Look at some of the things pushed in terms of gun control: magazine limits, 1 gun in 30 days limits, restrictions on concealed carry, CA not unsafe roster, 10 day waiting period even if you already own firearms, assault weapon bans, ammo bans, semi-auto handgun tax, cosmetic based bans, bullet button bans, bump stock bans, machine gun restrictions, etc. All of these things are irrelevant to suicide prevention. That’s because the approach to suicide prevention is entirely different than the approach towards other issues with firearms.
Here’s one big one - treating the right to own a gun as a fundamental human right.
Owning a gun when you suffer from bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, or depression is a really bad idea. Indeed, it’s one of those cases where gun confiscation is an extremely good idea, because the danger of rather permanent self-harm is a serious one.
At the same time, I hope you can understand why I’m wary of removing constitutional rights on the basis of mental disorders as a matter of principle, regardless of how good of an idea it would be in practice - the precedent set is incredibly dangerous. It puts the mentally ill in a no-win scenario.
And yeah, of course many gun control issues have nothing to do with suicide, and people posting suicide stats to push for bump stock regulations are being dishonest. But how 'bout we wait for someone to actually do that before we start throwing around that accusation? HMS Irruncible’s post was entirely fair in that regards.
Fair in what regard? Post #80 lumped in victims such as ‘innocent bystanders, suicides, domestic violence victims, one child killing another, etc.’ Is that type of grouping fair or even informative? Suicide prevention is an important issue. But the magnitude of suicides do virtually nothing to inform the rational in support of the right to arms. Even if the rate of suicide were significantly higher, 10x or 100x, it would not change the rationale in support of the right to arms a single iota. The approach I favor is much greater mental health availability and outreach. I think background checks could have value, but I’m not willing to concede the issue because gun control advocacy is so fundamentally flawed that they must be stopped as a matter of principle.
This is in addition to the fact that the framing of the post indicates that guns are doing the killing, as if they have a will of their own, as well as assuming a belief about who deserves what, the entire last paragraph is just a mess.
The first paragraph of post #80 doesn’t fare much better. Comparing guns to cars is convenient, but trite. It’s also fundamentally wrong because the two are entirely different. So asking if we are interested in reducing the number of deaths comparable to car crashes is like asking if we are interested in reducing the number of deaths comparable to lightning strikes, or spontaneous combustion. It’s irrelevant. Just as are comparisons to other countries, etc. are not useful. Other countries have their own laws, history, customs, and culture. Good for them.
I think that given your outright opposition to all gun control, it’s questionable whether there’s any grouping at all that you’d consider informative. And I’m not sure what it means to be “fair” to an inanimate object.
It is very informative in the sense that it shows guns cause a great many deaths that are unrelated to the purpose of self-defense, regulated-militia-forming, or whatever other reasons people use to support the 2nd amendment.
It matters relative to car crashes not because gun deaths are like car crashes, but because it gives an idea as to how widespread the problem is.
Do you have any proposals on how to address it? It seems like this is usually offered to shift discussion away from the role of guns in suicides.
Well… yeah. It’s an externality. They tend not to affect the arguments in favor of something, because they’re orthogonal. The argument in favor of burning fossil fuels comes down to things like “it makes cars go”; whether that also warms the globe and causes international catastrophes has no effect on the fact that fuel makes cars go.
That doesn’t mean we can ignore it, though. It just means that we need to have a slightly more complex analysis of the pros and cons of legal gun ownership than “list the arguments in favor and see if they hold up to scrutiny”.
It’s a comparison that really doesn’t favor you - cars are useful and necessary. Guns… aren’t.
This is mighty convenient - what possible data could we bring to bear on the issue of gun violence if we say a priori that almost any data we could use for a comparison is inherently useless?
Did it do so in 1791 and did the writer know those rules?
Because I know that banning all handguns will just put a lot of otherwise law abiding citizens in prisons, and in the end, not significant reduce violent crime.
Sure, lets get rid of the war on drugs.
Because suicide is a choice and a right. Instead do the billions and billions wasted on banning guns, lets spend a little on better mental health.
Those two words, useful and necessary…
Of course guns are useful, they’re just useful for something that you don’t think is necessary.
What it boils down to is whether the ability to use deadly force should be allowed to the general public, or if it should be restricted to official agents of the government like law enforcement and the military.
As it stands today, in America, the answer to that question is “yes, with some restrictions.” What those restrictions are, is an ongoing subject of debate, and yes, subject to change. Based on legislation.
If they wind up in prison, they weren’t law-abiding, were they? It’s easy to be law abiding when the laws don’t stop you from doing the things you want to do.
We’ve spent decades throwing brown people in jail for scraps of weed or selling loosies, and now it’s all “let’s not jail people for petty crimes, like owning a banned weapon that can kill with a twitch of a finger.”