Observations of the 3rd Democratic Debate

Yesbut- Japan has a higher suicide rate and No guns.

Red flag laws are Ok if there is fair judicial review, due process, etc. Some do, some dont.

Very true.

Why do you think that is a “yes but”? You are, for no discernible reason, implying that Japan’s suicide rate would be the exact same if they had more guns. That flies in the face of the fact that in the US, more guns=more suicides.

Just the opposite. I am saying that even if the USA had no guns, people would still kill themselves- Japan proves that you dont need guns to have a lot of suicide. And imho suicide is a basic human right.

But see, that’s incredibly stupid. Everyone on the planet knows that you don’t need a gun to kill yourself. That doesn’t change the fact that the easier it is to get a gun, the more suicides you’ll have. No one is saying what you’re arguing against. The only way your argument has any merit is if we assume Japan’s suicide rate wouldn’t change if they had looser gun laws.

Yesbut what? You cite that like it is some controlled trial in which the societies are exactly the same with only the one variable of guns being variable. And dutifully ignoring the overwhelming predominance of data that shows how risks of suicide increase with gun availability to the person considering the act, and decrease if gun access is slowed down or removed.
Yesbut a culture that has historically elevated the value of suicide as a highly honorable act, the proper thing to do out of duty, and which is having the cultural shift pressures with many men sexless and feeling a sense of failure, a majority unhappy, that Japan has, would, based on all we know have a much higher rate of suicide with wide availability of guns. Japanese unhappiness could be thread unto itself.
I meant the question I asked as one looking for your answer: If your brother or father or son (depending on your and their age group) was severely clinically depressed and had expressed some suicidal thinking would you feel comfortable leaving him alone in the house or even a room with a loaded handgun on the table? Most professionals would advise getting guns out of the house, locked up elsewhere. Would you, assuming it was someone you loved, disagree … because he doesn’t need a gun to kill himself and its his human right to do so?

I like my loved ones alive and able to recover from their depressions. I’m funny that way.

Returning to the political … someone arguing that we should not get in the way of our loved ones offing themselves with these policy proposals would be painful politically. Most gun owners, let alone most voting Americans are on board with these items. Allow Trump and the NRA obedient GOP toadies to paint themselves into that corner. Don’t gift them a discussion framed as we are going to take your guns away. Even if it is what you desperately think might potentially defibrillate your long dead on the table primary campaign.

Of course you can still kill yourself without a gun. But the shooter in Dayton last month killed nine and injured 27 others before being killed by the police within half a minute or so. He used a semi-automatic weapon, without which he would not be able to shoot so many so quickly.

I don’t think there’s any need to rehash this. Once we start talking about suicide and Japan, the horse is already decomposed, fossilized, possibly turned into diamonds. The important point in all of this is that government confiscation of private property is a fucking stupid idea for a presidential candidate to advocate. It’s an asinine statement, it plays right into the hands of the GOP, and O’Rourke is an ass for opening this particular can of worms.

Some would dispute that suicide is a right, but let’s stipulate it for now.

Many suicide attempts fail, and the would-be suicider often changes his/her mind and ends up living a long happy life*. Had s/he tried with a gun instead of pills this suicider who went on to change his/her mind would have been dead or maimed. I can see that greater suicide success rate might seem to be a pro-gun argument; but that’s not what you’re arguing here, is it?

(* - Cite? Someone very dear to me.)

What is sad is that O’rourke’s proposal is spawning greater (or at least louder) outrage than the events which inspired it.

America is not ready for a gay president. A woman, sure, but not a gay man.

Not necessarily. Eminent domain is a form of confiscation, but always compensated.

And Kerry in 2004.

If America had a state church, it would be the Episcopalian – the default religion for Northeastern old-money aristos. The National Cathedral is Episcopalian for a reason.

No civilian has any legitimate use for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle. The issue should be presented in exactly that way.

I was referring to Gore. Perhaps I should have said 19 years.

As I have pointed out, automatic weapons are pretty much illegal in the uSA.
Many run of the mill normal deer rifles are semi-automatic, they also only hold a limited number of rounds. Many .22 rifles are semi-automatic.

The ignorance about guns by those wanting to ban them is amazing.

Sounds rather unsporting, to use a semi-auto to hunt.

Repealing the 2d Am. outright would do no damage to the nation.

Why not? The second amendment implies that individual combat weapons are included. Were I in the Sudan, I would want my fellow citizens and myself to pose a credible threat to the RSF. Knowing that the citizenry is armed is a check on a President that would ever contemplate tyranny.

Don’t hunt much, do you?

Eventually, it would.

How? I sincerely hope you are not thinking of privately owned weapons used for armed resistance to the state.