Skip to main content

People who own firearms can’t be trusted; at least that’s what we are told time and time and time again, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. We can’t be trusted to carry them, either openly or concealed and we can’t be trusted with them in our own homes.

Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a DKos group of second amendment supporters who also have progressive and liberal values. We don't think that being a liberal means one has to be anti-gun. Some of us are extreme in our second amendment views (no licensing, no restrictions on small arms) and some of us are more moderate (licensing, restrictions on small arms.) Moderate or extreme or somewhere in between, we hold one common belief: more gun control equals lost elections.  We don't want a repeat of 1994. We are an inclusive group: if you see the Second Amendment as safeguarding our right to keep and bear arms individually, then come join us in our conversation. If you are against the right to keep and bear arms, come join our conversation. We look forward to seeing you, as long as you engage in a civil discussion.  
As always, if you're interested in joining RKBA, message KVoimakas.

Step into virtually any RKBA related diary and you will undoubtedly find comments that declare that gun owners might snap at any moment and go on a shooting rampage. Violent crime rates are continuing a downward trend but we can't be trusted. We are told that firearms aren’t much good for self defense because it’s more likely that the attacker will take the gun and use it against their victim. Depending on the study, defensive gun uses range from a low of 108,000 to a high of 2.5 million per year. With around 100,000 firearm related injuries each year even using the lowest estimates of DGUs there is a net gain in favor of firearm ownership, but we can't be trusted. Based on the statistics I have seen for Florida and Texas, concealed carry permit holders have a lower rate of criminal behavior than law enforcement officers (Florida) and those without a permit (Texas), but we can't be trusted. One of the most frequent arguments I see is that anyone who goes out and buys a firearm (especially a handgun) is setting themselves up for a violent death by suicide and can't be trusted.

So the reasoning goes that just owning a firearm means the owner is more likely to use their firearm to commit suicide than use it to prevent a violent crime like murder, therefore we would all be better off with fewer firearms and fewer people being able to own firearms.

This line of reasoning gives me pause and makes me wonder about some things. Is this true, is there a causal relationship between firearm ownership and suicide? Would firearm access restrictions lead to a substantial reduction in suicide rates?

In a 2004 report, the National Academy of Sciences noted that there was no link between firearm ownership and suicides when comparing the rates of different countries. This tells us that the number of guns or level of firearm ownership in a country is not an indicator of that countries rates of suicide.

I am of the opinion that gun ownership has no affect on the numbers of people who kill themselves. What is affected is the numbers of people who commit suicide with a gun. To me that makes obvious sense, someone who really, really wants to kill themselves doesn’t need a .357 because they have an abundance of alternative methods at their disposal. But the response I often get from firearm opponents is that guns will inevitably raise the suicide rate because they are uniquely lethal. If you take away guns or at the least severely restrict access to them you will greatly decrease the suicide rate.

I am going to venture a guess and assume that people who use a gun to commit suicide are generally fully committed to ending their lives. So even if they are deprived of a firearm, I am confident they will no doubt find a different yet reliable method to end their lives. The bottom line? Increased, restrictive firearm legislation or the banning firearms is unlikely to produce a substantive reduction in the overall suicide rate.

In his paper “Suicide and Culture” David Lester made the following statement.

Research indicates that increased availability of a method for suicide is associated with an increase in its use for suicide (Carke and Lester, 1989). For example, Killias, van Kesteren and Rindlisbacher (2001) found that, in nations where a large proportion of the population owned guns, higher numbers of suicide were committed with guns. However, ownership of guns had no association with the total suicide rate. This suggests that, if guns are not freely available, people use guns less often for committing suicide but switch instead to other methods for suicide, such as poisons, hanging, stabbing, jumping and drowning.
This all leads me to my final question of, When it comes to establishing firearm policy should we consider suicide? What if scientific studies were conducted and did establish that gun owners couldn’t be trusted, that regular exposure via ownership of a firearm resulted in a shortened lifespan due to suicide? Should we do anything about it?

There are all kinds of things that we are exposed to that can and do shorten our lifespan. Buying and driving a car has the potential to shorten your lifespan, people drive a lot and traffic accidents can be fatal. Having a swimming pool in your backyard is a potentially fatal hazard to you and your loved ones. Common household chemicals are hazardous and cause numerous fatalities each year, but I have yet to hear people suggesting that there be laws that limit access to these things.

Personal safety ultimately rests with the individual and a mentally stable person should be free to judge whether they are more at risk from a street criminal than from a spell of intense depression.

People of a paternalistic nature declare we should have our access to firearms severely restricted at best and the right to keep and bear arms eliminated at worst because we, the firearm owning public, are our own worst enemies. My reply is simple: We can't trust ourselves, but are supposed to trust you?

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (24+ / 0-)

    By the Collision of different Sentiments, Sparks of Truth are struck out, and political Light is obtained. - Benjamin Franklin

    by oldpunk on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 09:23:48 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for the diary. (21+ / 0-)

    You bring up some points that will lead to (hopefully) good discussion.

    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

    by KVoimakas on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 09:26:34 AM PDT

  •  According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) (20+ / 0-)

    in 2010, suicide was the eleventh leading cause of death in the US.  That ranking has held more or less steady for many years.  Poisoning was the leading cause of suicide.  Gunshot was the second.  Women attempt suicide at a two to three times higher rate than men, and their preferred method was overdose.  Men use guns more often than women.  There is no method of suicide that is exclusive to any demographic group.  

    Here are a few statistics from the CDC.  You have to burrow down into their website for more detailed studies and demographics.

    The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

    by Otteray Scribe on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 09:33:56 AM PDT

  •  I always call it... (20+ / 0-)

    ..."The Magic Yet."

    All too often, when we point out that a particular gun-owner has never committed a crime, the response is something along the lines of, "They just haven't committed a crime yet."

    It's not a great argument, because it can be used in so very many situations.  You can make the argument about pretty much any living person, that they haven't done some specific thing yet.

    Excellent diary -- thanks for contributing!

    Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

    by theatre goon on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 09:37:03 AM PDT

  •  I would feel a lot more comfortable (7+ / 0-)

    trusting gun owners if they had to complete  a basic safety course before buying a gun. A gun is at least as dangerous to use improperly as a car, but do you have to pass a test in order to buy a gun? You have to pass a test in order to get a driver's license.

    My dad was hit with a bullet fragment in the back of his neck one year while standing on the side of the road chatting to a state trooper. Some doofus sitting in his car across the road accidentally discharged his rifle (he thought it was unloaded!); the bullet went through the floorboard, hit the ground under the car, and fragmented.  

    My dad was lucky; the surgeon who dug out the bullet told him that if the bullet had been only 1/8 of an inch farther to one side, he would have been paralyzed.

    A safety course might not have taught that idiot to treat all guns as if they were loaded, but maybe it might have. It couldn't hurt.

    •  But you don't need a drivers license to buy (12+ / 0-)

      a car.

      I'm all for mandatory firearm safety training in primary and secondary ed.

      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

      by KVoimakas on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:38:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Um (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oldpunk

        A car isn't going to do you much good if you can't take it out on the road because you don't have a license.  If you can't drive the car on public roadways, you aren't going to be putting anyone else in danger, are you?

        Sorry, but your idea of taking already scarce public resources and applying them to requiring everyone to take firearm safety training doesn't make much sense to me. We're cutting things like music, physical education and art in our public schools as electives because of funding constraints, preventing even students who want these courses from taking them.

        Not every body is interested in learning how to use a gun. It would be a terrible waste of scarce resources to make everyone take a class like that.

        No, if someone wants to buy a gun, fine. In addition to a background check, they should have to take a basic safety course at least once in their life, too.

        •  They do me a lot of good. (13+ / 0-)
          A car isn't going to do you much good if you can't take it out on the road because you don't have a license.
          I need a truck most days to do my work -- I just can't carry all the equipment I need with me.  Most days, it never leaves private property.

          Your experience is not universal.

          And, this...

          Sorry, but your idea of taking already scarce public resources and applying them to requiring everyone to take firearm safety training doesn't make much sense to me.
          You don't have to be trained in how to use a gun to know gun safety.  The two are linked, but not identical.
          Not every body is interested in learning how to use a gun.
          It would be nice, however, if people at least knew the basic facts before they, say, lobby to enact public policy.  For instance, when people talk about how we need to ban "cop-killer bullets," they should really know what that term refers to, and that they are already banned.

          Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

          by theatre goon on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 03:27:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I suspect (0+ / 0-)

            you have a driver's license, though, and to get one you passed a test. Am I correct?

            My point is that there are very, very few people who buy a vehicle  who don't have a driver's license.  And even if there were such people, it would hardly make sense to say you can buy a gun, but if you plan to shoot it, you need to pass a safety course.

            If there are people out there agitating for banning cop killer bullets, I don't see what harm that does to anyone since cop killer bullets are already banned. Lobbying for something that is already law harms no one other than it wastes the time of the persons lobbying.

            Yet you wish to take classroom time (away from learning things that might actually be useful to students in their own lives) to teach something like this?

            If gun safety was required in schools, I'm sure the NRA would be delighted to write the curriculum. Just to help out. And it would be perfectly fair and balanced, too.

            •  The NRA has ran (4+ / 0-)

              firearm safety courses, both for hunters and for personal protection, for many years, and they do a fine, non-political job of it. That part of the organization is separate from the political lobbying arm.

              That's about the only thing they do right, IMHO.

              Roughly half of all households have at least one firearm present. Gun safety instruction for kids is a good idea, one that would take very little classroom time. We're not talking about a semester long course on how to maintain and shoot a gun. Just basic safety, like don't point it at people, or if you find one at Johnny's house leave it alone, that sort of thing.

              "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

              by happy camper on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 06:56:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I do, indeed, have a driver's license. (4+ / 0-)

              That fact takes nothing whatsoever away from my point -- no matter how many times you try to twist what I actually said into something you'd rather I had said.

              I pointed out that your assertion was unsupported.

              And, actually lobbying for something that is already law can, in fact, be quite harmful.  For instance, if Democrats run on a platform of banning "cop killer" bullets, it makes them look foolish -- thereby harming their electoral chances.

              It would be like running on a platform of making it illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to be able to buy alcohol.  It's wasted campaigning, and makes one look as if they haven't bothered to take the time to learn what the law actually is.

              And you really don't think it would be useful for children to know how they should react in the presence of a firearm?  Maybe they shouldn't know what to do in the case of fire, either...?  It would be the same logic, after all...

              Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

              by theatre goon on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 07:27:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  My problem with gun ownership is the argument (5+ / 0-)

    that guns are different from other types of property. The gun owners I know take their firearms very seriously, train in their use, meticulously maintain their weapons, keep them locked up at act responsibly. They favor common sense requirements like training and proving competence before you are allowed to own a gun, and taking responsibility for what happens with your gun.

    I am in favor of a reading of the 2nd amendment that takes seriously the militia clause. And I believe in a militia that would replace the standing professional army that would require mandatory national service. And this would involve firearms training. Notice how the people in Israel who go crazy with the guns are the settlers who are exempt from national service?

    I would support mandatory gun training in schools, including marksmanship classes. I did that in Boy Scouts and it did me a world of good. I do not own a fire arm and have no wish to own a fire arm but I have no problem with the responsible gun owner.

    What I do not agree with however is the right of a gun owner to be irresponsible. To not get training. To not practice. To not keep his weapons safe. I reject the rhetoric of the NRA and the politics of firearms over the past 35 years.

    The President is not an enemy of gun owners. He respects their rights to keep and bare arms and to use them for hunting, recreation and self-defense. How do I know this. Well, he told me this. In person. In 2003 when the easy answer to get the Senate nomination would be to support gun control. He broke with Mayor Daley and the leadership of the Democratic Party in Illinois because he thought that people in Southern Illinois were not getting a fair hearing in Chicago and Springfield.

    I knew a gay who's father used to repack shotgun shells. He blew up a city block and there was nothing left of him to bury. This is not responsible gun ownership. Now my friend on the other hand is an expert on gun safety and a credit to gun owners everywhere.

    All we asking is that all gun owners act responsibly so that we do not feel the need to regulate. My mom used to say when things got broken around the house "Thats why we can't have nice things". I fear that is happening to all of our civil rights. And if gun owners want to put an end to the rhetoric of gun control then you had better make sure that all gun owners are acting responsibly.

    •  Really, this is the argument you want to have? (15+ / 0-)
      And if gun owners want to put an end to the rhetoric of gun control then you had better make sure that all gun owners are acting responsibly.
      How about:
      And if alcohol drinkers want to put an end to the rhetoric of alcohol control then you had better make sure that all alcohol drinkers are acting responsibly.
      or
      And if automobile owners want to put an end to the rhetoric of automobile control then you had better make sure that all automobile owners are acting responsibly.
      or
      And if parents want to put an end to the rhetoric of putting their children in foster care then you had better make sure that all parents are acting responsibly.

      If you play Microsoft CD's backwards, you hear satanic things, but that's nothing, because if you play them forwards, they install Windows.

      by Unit Zero on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:10:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well yes and all of those examples are regulated (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lgmcp, oldpunk

        by state and local governments. There are extensive laws dealing with the distribution and consumption of alcohol. There are numerous regulations about the use of cars and a number of mechanisms to take away your driving privileges. And there is entire justice system setup to deal with bad parenting including the loss of your privileges as a parent. And no seems to have a real problem with any of these being regulated.

        If our conservative friends can argue that industry can self police itself is it so harsh to ask gun owners to police themselves?

        •  No one has to get a licence (14+ / 0-)

          to have a kid.

          As far as laws go, there are any number of laws on the books currently regarding firearms. In most states you have to have a permit to conceal carry, Felons can not own guns, and many others.

          There are extensive laws dealing with the distribution and consumption use of alcohol firearms. There are numerous regulations about the use of cars firearms and a number of mechanisms to take away your driving firearm owning privileges.
          See - works this way as well.

          If you play Microsoft CD's backwards, you hear satanic things, but that's nothing, because if you play them forwards, they install Windows.

          by Unit Zero on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:26:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If you lived in Florida you would be able to (0+ / 0-)

            buy as many guns as you could carry out of the store after getting a concealed permit so easy to get that felons have no problems getting guns. By the time they have taken your guns away you have already committed a crime with said gun and injured or killed someone. Here in Florida we are too busy keeping people from voting to worry about enforcing what lax gun laws we have.

            If guns are regular property than it takes a search warrent and a court order and a restitution payment to get your gun away from you. Unless you have committed a crime with said gun. Then it is too late.

        •  Firearms are also regulated... (12+ / 0-)

          ...by state and local governments -- and I know of no one arguing that they should not be regulated at all.

          That being the case, you seem to be arguing against an argument not made.

          Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

          by theatre goon on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 03:16:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, dammit, I'll make the argument then... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            buddabelly, oldpunk, theatre goon

            just for arguments sake!

            I do not believe any unalienable right should have conditions placed upon them....BECAUSE they become privileges that can be denied.

            Unless of course you're adjudicated mentally incompetent.

            I pray for the day when that can be utilized against the crazy Republicans...

            "Your right to political speech is hereby revoked until you can prove you are mentally stable AND will use such in a way we approve!"

            If only we had such "regulations" prior to the Bush Crime Syndicate's assent into office!

            Wait a minute...there's a knock at my door...

            "WHAT DO YOU MEAN I CAN'T TYPE WHAT I JUST DID?" "IT PROVES I'M ANTI-SOCIAL????" "IT PROVES I'M ANTI-GUBERMENT????" "WHAT ARE YOU SAYING....I CAN'T PRACTICE MY OWN POLITICAL SPEECH NOW????"

            UGH...dammit...got go...

            This poster will no longer be allowed to post here. Thank you for your cooperation with DHS!

            "______  ___ ____ __ BUT I DIDN'T ____ ___ ___ I WAS ___ JOKING ___ __!"

            ** "__ ___" HAS BEEN REDACTED FOR YOUR PROTECTION!

            ;)

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 12:08:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't necessarily agree... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Robobagpiper, oldpunk, gerrilea

              ...but it is a cogent argument -- and quite reasonable.

              However, we've lived with restrictions on Civil Rights ever since those rights have been written down and acknowledged in governing documents.

              Taking a pretty extreme example -- there are laws against fraud, even though this could be seen as restrictions of free speech.

              This is a good thing.

              If you're not going to place any restrictions whatsoever on any right, then there's really no point in having any laws at all, is there...?

              Where the line should be drawn, in my opinion, is whether any restriction on a Civil Right should be useful (actually do what it sets out to do) and be needed (what it sets out to do is necessary).

              Well, honestly, I think all restrictions on any behavior should follow those rules, but the bar should be set much higher on Civil Rights.

              So, let's look at restrictive gun control, from that viewpoint.

              Most people claim that such schemes are meant to lower crime -- they don't.  We know this from history.

              Sorry if this is a bit rambling, the coffee hasn't quite kicked in yet...

              Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

              by theatre goon on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 03:53:51 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I actually do agree and understand what you are (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                theatre goon

                saying, to a point.  I've had a problem with the equation of an unalienable right as being equal to a civil right.  Civil rights are arbitrary privileges our government can create or destroy, control, modify or set the conditions upon how they are utilized or exercised.  Free speech zones and permits to protest come to mind here.

                This blurring of the lines sets the stage whereby those once unalienable rights will be simply and legislatively destroyed with a stroke of a pen.  I'm thinking of the H.R. 347: Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 that was recently signed.

                We've crossed the Rubicon here.

                Your fraud example doesn't restrict my right to lie to my neighbor, it does provide penalties if those lies harm him.  I lie about the conditions of my used car and tell you that it's in perfect running order.  The law says you don't have any recourse unless the sum I extracted is above a certain amount, here in NYS it's $1500 or more.  The law then says I've harmed you and entitled to recourse through our legal system.  What about the 10,000 people I lied to that only paid $800 for the car?

                Caveat emptor-Buyer be aware.

                We have built into our current system a level of personal responsibility where the government says it has no obligations to act.  Why must this be any different with a firearm?

                If I chose not to take a safety class and I shoot my own foot off, should the government be forced into action because I was stupid?  NO.  But if my stupidity leads me to shoot my neighbors foot off....YES.

                My rights end where yours begin.  I do not believe the government should be in the business of modifying behavior, it should, if we all agree...make certain actions having punitive consequences, such as raping, killing or pillaging.  If you do x, y or z to yourself, that's your choice, if you do it to your neighbor, then we must talk.

                I know I could verbalize this a bit better, my thoughts are in flux on this at the moment...

                As for this:

                So, let's look at restrictive gun control, from that viewpoint.

                Most people claim that such schemes are meant to lower crime -- they don't.  We know this from history.

                Is it actually the duty of our government to reduce crime? Or to prosecute it?  Since we agree that their claims, motives, intent are invalid, what is the purpose of gun control then?

                Wait, that question might be for another day.

                -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                by gerrilea on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 07:40:57 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I think we agree on most of this... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gerrilea, Robobagpiper

                  ...we're maybe just coming at it from somewhat different directions.

                  Now, I do largely agree with you on, let's call it, the difference between punitive and preventative laws.  We should punish people for what they've actually done, not necessarily to try to make it impossible for them to do so in the first place -- with a few exceptions.

                  Crack cocaine, for instance, should be illegal, in my opinion, and we should do everything within reason to prevent people from using it.  Marijuana, however, is a wholly different discussion.

                  I'm pretty sure we agree on that, and so there's no need to go any deeper into it -- just an example to make the point.

                  There are things that we should try to prevent people from ever doing, rather than just punishing them after they have actually done so.

                  And, since we're discussing it anyway...

                  Is it actually the duty of our government to reduce crime?
                  I believe so, as much as it is the duty of the government to help provide other public services, such as public roadways.  An individual can't really do it, that's why we have government in the first place, to do those things to promote society overall and that the individual can't do.

                  Gun control can have valid purposes.  Keeping firearms out of the hands of those who have, through due process, have that right restricted, for instance.

                  Where it gets out of hand is when the intent is to keep firearms out of the hands of everyone, because the public can't be trusted on their own to act responsibly...

                  Oh, wait.  There was a diary based on that very concept recently...  Where was that...?

                  ;-)

                  Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                  by theatre goon on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 07:52:49 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  I consider firearms... (15+ / 0-)

      ...just like any other form of property.

      That's why I oppose registration or licensing for simple ownership -- just like I would oppose registration or licensing to own, say, a book.

      Now, if you want to talk about, for instance, concealed carry of firearms, I'm all for requiring additional training and getting the license to do so -- but that is an activity, it is not a license to own a particular piece of property.

      As for this:

      What I do not agree with however is the right of a gun owner to be irresponsible.
      I have never seen anyone suggest that there is any such right -- even the dreaded NRA.

      There are laws against the irresponsible use of firearms, and I've not seen any sweeping attempts to remove those laws.  Nor have I seen anyone seriously advocate that the 2nd Amendment protects a right for anyone to do anything they want with a firearm.  Murder, for instance, does not become legal because a firearm was used, under any realistic interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

      And, on this...

      All we asking is that all gun owners act responsibly so that we do not feel the need to regulate.
      The vast majority of gun owners do act responsibly.  Why don't we just prosecute those who do not, rather than restricting the rights of those who do...?  That's what we do with any other protected right, or even non-illegal activity.

      In other words, let's prosecute those who commit crimes, rather than punishing everyone with a restriction of their Civil Rights because someone else committed a crime.

      It's like requiring a license to exercise Freedom of Speech because someone else committed fraud.  It's silly, and no one would advocate such a stance for any other right -- why do they insist on doing so for this one...?

      As an aside, I'm away from the computer for the next several hours, so I won't be able to respond to any response for a while...

      Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

      by theatre goon on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:11:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, you know "a gay"? How many of those (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Unit Zero, gerrilea, oldpunk

      "gays" do you know?

    •  kmackle: most gun owners, like most drivers (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PavePusher, ER Doc, oldpunk, gerrilea

      aren't morons.

      But there are exceptions.

      Perhaps more of them exist on the "pro-gun-control" side of the argument. I don't know for sure.

      LBJ & Lady Bird, Sully Sullenberger, Molly Ivins, Barbara Jordan, Ann Richards, Drew Brees: Texas is No Bush League! -7.50,-5.59

      by BlackSheep1 on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 05:39:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  May I please see proof of your training... (7+ / 0-)

      and government certification to exercise the First, Fourth, Thirteenth and Twenty-sixth Amendments?  Got your licenses?  Proof of fees paid?

      What, no? Why not?

      "...he blew up a city block..."  Ummm, cite, please?

  •  There is plenty of support in Chicago (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    goObama

    for an outright ban on guns.

    I randomly ask people for their opinion on guns.  Most don't like guns one bit.

    It is too bad that there is never any option at the ballot box for an outright ban.

    And just this last week a 7 year old girl was shot dead by a stray bullet.  But this was in one of the poorer sections of town.  

  •  It's not personal; I don't trust *anyone* with... (4+ / 0-)

    lethal weapons, most especially people I don't know personally to be extremely responsible and reliable, without some demonstration of training and competence.

    And as you've probably noticed if you've ever driven on America's highways, or stood in a long checkout line at the grocery store or the DMV, there are a lot of Americans who are not especially competent.

    So, yes. I would love to see some kind of reasonable requirement for training and (is it too much to ask? To be permitted to walk around with lethal weapons?) demonstration of competence as a condition of firearms ownership.

    Now, in my experience, firearms fundamentalists frequently respond to this by asserting that any such requirement is a totally unacceptable infringement on their right to bear arms, because it conceivably could be misused to prevent firearms ownership by (say) African Americans much like poll taxes were to prevent folks from voting. But follow the logic: would you permit the faintest possibility of bias to shoot down any requirement for motor vehicle drivers to demonstrate bare competence before being let loose on the highways?

    If you answer this by insisting "but it's my Constitutional right, I don't care if incompetent or criminally negligent people can have guns too", then I don't think we will ever come to any understanding on this issue.

    •  When you consider that the Department (10+ / 0-)

      of Motor Vehicles is part of the Department of Revenue and how many shitty drivers there are out there it becomes obvious that competence and safety aren't part of the equation.

      By the Collision of different Sentiments, Sparks of Truth are struck out, and political Light is obtained. - Benjamin Franklin

      by oldpunk on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 03:36:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I trust... (11+ / 0-)

      ...a whole lot of people with lethal weapons.

      So, where does that leave us?

      We disagree, clearly.  The real problem comes in, however, when you ignore facts to make your stance.

      For instance:

      ...a totally unacceptable infringement on their right to bear arms, because it conceivably could be misused to prevent firearms ownership by (say) African Americans much like poll taxes were to prevent folks from voting.
      This is not speculation -- these things have, in fact, happened in the past.

      It's not something that could, possibly, sometime happen -- it has happened.

      We know that people use such tactics to incrementally take away rights, because they have done so before.

      Additionally, you create stances for others that they do not take:

      If you answer this by insisting "but it's my Constitutional right, I don't care if incompetent or criminally negligent people can have guns too", then I don't think we will ever come to any understanding on this issue.
      I have never seen anyone advocate that people who have shown themselves to be criminally negligent should not have their rights restricted through due process of law.

      So, no...

      Because of this, we will probably not ever come to any understanding on this issue.

      I support Civil Rights -- all of them.  I don't support picking and choosing what I rights I want others to be able to exercise, and ignore the lessons of history in order to do so.  

      Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

      by theatre goon on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 04:09:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'll bet you spend time in other peoples.... (7+ / 0-)

      kitchens, surrounded by lethal weapons, and never worry for a second.

      •  Don't get me started....don't you even.... (5+ / 0-)

        Oh hell:

        "Wife accused of accidentally killing her husband with a buffet spoon...tune in tonight at 11:00pm for the latest details!"

        "She claims he told her to make his favorite dish and he used the buffet serving spoon and choked on it."

        "Death by Goulash or Is it?"

        --video clip deleted over copyright claims by CBS---

        :0

        Wait, this it it:

        "Boyfriend purees his girlfriend in Cuisinart™ After she tells him he can't cook!  It's rumored he then cooked her in the Dyngus Day pierogi's saying, "Who's cooking now!""

        "Sister kills sister with tongs"... Obituary states "Tonged to Death over slippery meatball!"

        OH dammit, I have to get some sleep...

        ;)

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 12:32:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yep. Guns are just exactly like kitchen implements (0+ / 0-)

          There is absolutely no difference between an assault rifle with a 30 round clip of .556 ammo and a pair of salad tongs. They are exactly the same.

          •  You've got a point. (6+ / 0-)

            It is exceedingly rare that assault rifles are used in crimes, while knives are quite commonly so used.

            Plus, that assault rifle is extremely, even prohibitively, expensive for the average person to own -- not so with kitchen implements.

            You've got this pretty well figured out!

            That being the case, maybe you can explain exactly how it's worse to be killed by gunfire than to be killed by, for instance, stabbing.

            It seems to me that dead is dead, but clearly you have a different view.

            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

            by theatre goon on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 04:22:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No one killed 33 people @ Va Tech with salad tongs (0+ / 0-)
              •  No one killed 33 people @ VA Tech with an assault (7+ / 0-)

                rifle.

                Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                by KVoimakas on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 06:11:39 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I note... (5+ / 0-)

                ...that you have no answer for my question -- nor any substantive response to the points I made.

                That being the case, I now feel comfortable in dismissing your assertions.  You clearly can't support them, nor respond when they are challenged.

                Thank you for joining the debate -- perhaps next time, you can do so seriously.

                Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                by theatre goon on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 06:43:25 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Hint: go do your research.... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                theatre goon

                before conversing with the adults.

                •  Aware of difference between semiauto handguns.. (0+ / 0-)

                  and assault rifles, thanks.
                  And still feel that it's flat out insane to permit any fool to own either without rigorous background checks, training and proof of competence. We insist on most of that in return for a license to drive a car. It's the least we should do to permit someone to walk around with lethal weapons.

                  And, sure, the Virginia Tech miscreant was an obviously deranged individual who never should have gotten his hands on firearms even under current absurdly lax regulations. But for firearms fundamentalists, that's apparently a feature, not a bug. Otherwise that old domestic violence citation might prevent someone from amassing an arsenal.

                  •  So, you know the difference... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    PavePusher

                    ...and still use the terms interchangeably at times.

                    Why would one do so?

                    The only reason I can think of is that you are trying to use emotionally-based -- and false -- hyperbole to support a point which cannot be supported by fact or reason.

                    Add in a few outright falsehoods...

                    But for firearms fundamentalists, that's apparently a feature, not a bug.
                    ...and we see that you have offered nothing whatsoever to this discussion.  Rather, you seem to be trying to derail discussion.

                    Is that really all you've got?

                    Nevermind, we've seen that it is.

                    Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                    by theatre goon on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 04:28:58 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  May I please see your proof of training.... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    theatre goon, KVoimakas

                    background checks, psychological evaluations, fees paid and licences in hand for exercise of your First, Fourth, Thirteenth, Twenty-first and Twenty-sixth Amendment Rights?

                    And no, we don't have any of those requirements for mere purchase of a vehicle.  Operation on private property, same.  Only when it comes to operation in public areas does licencing kick in, and the only thing that vaguely applies is "proof of competence", and even that is argueable, given my observation of most drivers.  Speaking of "(in public) with lethal weapons".  You did know that far more people are killed with cars than guns, right?

                    You can actually look this stuff up, you know.  Hence the hint about "research".  

  •  Suicide is an impulsive act (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldpunk, jhm453

    People who study this stuff (i.e. psychiatrists and psychologists) repeatedly conclude that suicide is largely an impulsive act.  Yes, there are some people really want to kill themselves, and who carefully plan and then carry out their own demise.  But, according to the scientists who do research based on scientific principle (not simply coming off the top with an opinion), the majority of suicides are done impulsively.

    This is important because the scientific evidence further shows that if you can intervene and get a person beyond their moment of fear, anger, frustration, sadness, or whatever negative emotion is driving the impulse to kill themselves, many of these suidical people will outlive their urge to kill themselves.  

    Guns come into this discussion because guns offer an easy and highly lethal means of killing oneself.  So a person who is impulsively feeling like killing themselves and who has a gun it at a very high risk for death; much more so than the person who impulsively feels like killing themselves but who has no gun around.  Yes, the person who has no gun around can still manage to kill themselves, but they have to work at it much harder than someone with access to a gun.

    So the problem with guns is that a gun is so easy to use and so highly lethal that people with an impulsive feeling of kiling themselves quickly become dead people when there is a gun around.  Absent the gun, a person with an impulsive feeling of killing themselves has a greater chance to access help and survive their deadly impulse.

    The statistics bear this out: women attempt suicide much more frequently than men, but men kill themselves in suicide attempts at rate greater than do women.  Men are much more likely than women to use a gun in a suicide attempt, while women are much more likely to use a poison in their suicide attempts.  So here is a natural experiment and the results are clear: fewer people using guns to kill themselves results in more deaths than a greater number of people trying to kill themselves without guns.

    Gun owners are not singled out as especially stupid or untrust-worthy.  Most people are pretty dumb most of the time.  That is why ladders have instructions for use printed on them, and those little packages of dessicant that are included in so many purchases say "Do not eat" on them.  

    Given the high levels of stupidity of most people most of the time, making guns scarce is the wiser policy.

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:45:38 AM PDT

    •  What are your plans to make guns scarce? nt (9+ / 0-)

      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

      by KVoimakas on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 11:13:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So you agree that guns are dangerous. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oldpunk, jhm453

        Given that the article is about guns and suicide, and given that my comment to the article was about the danger that guns pose to people experiencing periods of stress or difficulty, and given you have not tried in any way to refute such arguments about the dangers of guns, we can conclude that you agree that guns are dangerous and most particularly dangerous to those who live around guns.

        (Fun Facts To Know And Tell #56: Death by gunshot injury is THE NUMBER ONE CAUSE OF DEATH in people who have bought a gun in the previous year.)

        So now that we are all agreed about the facts regarding guns in America, and the proper logical conclusions derived from examining those facts free of pre-conceived ideas, the question now comes: what do we do about what we know about guns.

        Should someone put me in charge and allows me to decide these sorts of things, I would first change our laws so that our law-makers are prevented from receiving private donations and all elections are paid with public funding.  This would protect our law-makers from the inherently corrupting act of soliciting and receiving money privately.  Such a change would restore our democracy and allow we the people to decide what to do about guns instead of permitting the gun industry to make those decisions for us.

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 12:22:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually no, I just asked a question. (10+ / 0-)

          Do you have a source for that gunshot injury statistic?

          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

          by KVoimakas on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 12:28:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Source - and necessary correction (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            oldpunk, KVoimakas

            I went to look up the reference for the gunshot injury statistic, and now I must correct myself.

            The source is the New England Journal of Medicine – Wintermute GJ.  NEJM. 2008; 358:1421-4.  Wintermute wrote that suicide is the leading cause of death for Americans who have purchased a handgun in the previous year.

            So I incorrectly stated that gunshot injury is the number one cause of death in people who have purchased a gun in the previous year.  I was wrong on two counts: 1) the difference between gunshot injury and suicide, and 2) the difference between gun and handgun.

            My apologies for my error.

            "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

            by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 02:08:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Gun Facts On Suicide (0+ / 0-)
              http://www.bradycampaign.org/...

              DID YOU KNOW? Firearm suicide is a major public health problem in the United States.
              •17,352 U.S. residents killed themselves with a firearm in 2007 (latest year available, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC)).

              •3,013 people survived an attempt to kill themselves with a gun in 2009 (latest year available, NCIPC).

              •States with high household gun ownership have more suicides than states with low household gun ownership. The excess suicides are almost entirely due to firearms (Miller, 2007, p. 1031).

              •While those living in high gun owning states are 1.6 times more likely to commit suicide, they are almost 4 times as likely to kill themselves with a gun but only .6 times more likely to kill themselves through other means (Miller, 2002, p. 522).

              DID YOU KNOW? Firearm suicide is as important a problem in rural areas as firearm homicide is in urban areas.
              •For all ages, the most urban counties have 1.03 times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most rural counties (Branas, p. 1750).  This means that, relative to their populations, the most rural and the most urban counties have roughly the same number of gun deaths. Rural counties have more gun suicides; urban areas have more gun homicides.
              •Youth (ages 0 to 19) in the most rural counties of the country are as likely to die from a gunshot as those living in the most urban counties.  Rural kids have more gun suicides and unintentional shooting deaths, while urban kids die more often of gun homicides (Nance, 2010).

              DID YOU KNOW? Keeping a gun in the home raises the risk of suicide.
               •Keeping a firearm in the home increases the risk of suicide by a factor of 3 to 5 and increases the risk of suicide with a firearm by a factor of 17 (Kellermann, p. 467, p. Wiebe, p. 771).

              •The association between firearm ownership and increased risk of suicide cannot be explained by a higher risk of psychiatric disorders in homes with guns (Miller, p. 183).

              •A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a completed or attempted suicide (11x), criminal assault or homicide (7x), or unintentional shooting death or injury (4x) than to be used in a self-defense shooting (Kellermann, p. 263).

              DID YOU KNOW?  Suicide attempts with firearms are much more likely to be fatal than attempts with other methods.
               •More than 90 percent of suicide attempts with a gun are fatal (Miller, 2004, p. 626).
              •In comparison, only 3 percent of attempts with drugs or cutting are fatal (Miller, 2004, p. 626).

              DID YOU KNOW?  Firearm suicide is a problem among young people.
               •Almost 50 percent of youth suicides (ages 15-24) are committed with guns (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2009).

              •Firearm suicide the 4th leading cause of death for this age group (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2009).

              •Eighty-five percent of youths under age 18 who died by firearm suicide used a family member's gun, usually a parent's (Harvard, 2001).

              •Thirty-three percent of U.S. households contain a gun (Pew, 2009).  Half of gun-owning households don't lock up their guns, including 40 percent of households with kids under age 18 (Johnson, p. 175).

              •Seventy percent of suicide attempters decide to kill themselves on an impulse - less than an hour before their attempt.  Ninety percent of people who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide (Miller, 2008, p. 989).
               

              •  Wow, nice technique... (6+ / 0-)

                    The "Gish Gallop" of anti-gun commentary...
                     A series of comments using weak statistics, questionable sources, & debatable definitions. For example, the set of comments on "youth suicide" switch from age 15-24 to "under 18" seamlessly. And yes, children under 18 almost always use a gun owned by a  relative, since they can't legally buy guns on their own. I'll bet most traffic accidents involving drivers under 18 involve vehicles owned by family members, too.
                     If I recall correctly, the Kellerman statistic defines "defensive use of a firearm" as an incident in which an attacker is shot. The vast majority of defensive uses of firearms, as others define it, do not involve discharging the gun.

                -7.25, -6.26

                We are men of action; lies do not become us.

                by ER Doc on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 11:51:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, and you never answered that question (9+ / 0-)

          How do you plan on making guns scarce?

          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

          by KVoimakas on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 02:04:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The gun isn't the problem...the people in their (5+ / 0-)

          lives are.  Seriously, someone is suicidal and nobody fucking notices?

          PLUEASE!!!!!

          You haven't actually presented any facts here, you've pointed out your inherent bias and deflection of our deteriorating social values that has created narcissistic individuals that couldn't care less about anyone but themselves...Hey, it's the American Way!

          It's a failed and empty argument to blame an object and it's manufacturers for a political system that is reactive and rarely if ever proactive, unless of course its to shred the fucking Constitution.

          The correct questions here are: Since guns are an individual unalienable right, what can we do to support our fellow Americans when their luck has run out?  Do we ban everything and anything that they could use to harm themselves? Or Should we provide educational tools to friends, families, co-workers and/or teachers that explain the signs of depression? Shouldn't we fully fund free mental health clinics for anyone needing it? Should we create PSA's to enlighten our fellow Americans on the tragedy a suicide causes and the warning signs that should be taken seriously???

          Naw, screw that, we might actually help one another. It's just easier (and of course cheaper) to ban everything!

           

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 12:58:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I have to differ here. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gerrilea, oldpunk

            Some depressives can hide their problem extremely well. Often, suicides come "out of the blue" for friends and family members. Also, depression is extremely difficult to treat effectively. Therapy is expensive and often ineffective, while drugs often have unacceptable side effects.

            Guns are indeed very conducive to impulsive acts. So are cars -- a twitch of the wrist on the steering wheel of a speeding car just as much as a gun. Technology empowers us. Both positively and negatively.

            GOP: Bankers, billionaires, suckers, and dupes.

            by gzodik on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 08:14:06 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree...I was one of those "depressives" (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gzodik, Robobagpiper, oldpunk

              when I was in my teens...gratefully I survived and accepted my transgendered nature.

              But are the majority of these suicides referenced so secretive? I do not believe that for one moment.

              Here's a short list of symptoms of depression:

              http://www.helpguide.org/...

              Common signs and symptoms of depression

                  * Feelings of helplessness and hopelessness.
                  * Loss of interest in daily activities.
                  * Appetite or weight changes.
                  * Sleep changes. Either insomnia, especially waking in the early hours of the morning, or oversleeping (also known as hypersomnia).
                  * Anger or irritability. Feeling agitated, restless, or even violent.
                  * Loss of energy. Feeling fatigued, sluggish, and physically drained.
                  * Self-loathing. Strong feelings of worthlessness or guilt.
                  * Reckless behavior.
                  * Concentration problems. Trouble focusing, making decisions, or remembering things.
                  * Unexplained aches and pains.

              Suicide:
                 *  Talking about killing or harming one’s self
                  * Expressing strong feelings of hopelessness or being trapped
                  * An unusual preoccupation with death or dying
                  * Acting recklessly, as if they have a death wish (e.g. speeding through red lights)
                  * Calling or visiting people to say goodbye
                  * Getting affairs in order (giving away prized possessions, tying up loose ends)
                  * Saying things like “Everyone would be better off without me” or “I want out”
                  * A sudden switch from being extremely depressed to acting calm and happy

              As for these points, I agree completely:
              Also, depression is extremely difficult to treat effectively. Therapy is expensive and often ineffective, while drugs often have unacceptable side effects.
              Therapy shouldn't be expensive or ineffective.  I actually got the most help from a psychologist and very little help from a psychiatrist.  The difference, imo, psychiatrists get kickbacks if they push drugs from the manufacturer.  There is little or no product liability or conflict of interest laws that mean a damn.

              Is it any surprise that our institutionalized corrupt system would actually do or create something that truly helped???

              We are intentionally distracted from these facts by our public servants so they can continue their charade of "helping us".

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 08:44:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe we should (11+ / 0-)

      get rid of ladders. And those little packs of dessicant. And scissors too. Someone could run with them, and fall down and put out their eye!

      "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

      by happy camper on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 12:25:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's not necessarily impulsive. (6+ / 0-)

      Some people are diagnosed with wasting and incurable diseases that will ruin their families financially, and put an unbearable load on their caregiver. In such a case, suicide is the only honorable path, IMO.

      GOP: Bankers, billionaires, suckers, and dupes.

      by gzodik on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 12:26:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I never said suicide is necessarily impulsive (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jhm453, gzodik

        Hello.  I never said that suicide was necessarily impulsive or always impulsive.  I said that according to the scientists who study suicides, the majority of suicides are done impulsively.

        I also said that there are some people really really want to kill themselves, and who carefully plan and then carry out their suicide.

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 01:56:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What you're deliberately trying to confuse here (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KVoimakas, oldpunk, theatre goon

          is the "impulsive" decision of the chronically mentally ill to transition from suicidal thoughts to suicidal action, with a purely imaginary risk of a mentally healthy person suddenly and spontaneously attempting suicide.

          This is grossly dishonest.

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 05:16:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You make a good point. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oldpunk

          Namely, handguns are a very convenient and highly effective tool for suicide.

          Your unqualified comment title "Suicide is an impulsive act" sounded absolute.

          GOP: Bankers, billionaires, suckers, and dupes.

          by gzodik on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 08:00:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Why must the focus be on the object used (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oldpunk, theatre goon, KVoimakas

      and not our failing social safety nets?

      Why aren't these children getting the mental health services that could actually save their lives????

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 12:40:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then they couldn't try to ban (4+ / 0-)

        the thing they despise. It's not about helping people, it's not about safety, it's about controlling a population that is engaged in an activity they don't approve of.

        By the Collision of different Sentiments, Sparks of Truth are struck out, and political Light is obtained. - Benjamin Franklin

        by oldpunk on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 03:06:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Don't forget the political oppurtunism. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Robobagpiper, oldpunk, KVoimakas, gerrilea

          I'm personally quite convinced that not all politicians who run on banning or severely restricting gun ownership actually, personally, oppose it.

          But, it's a way to get votes from people who do.

          Much like how so many Republicans get votes on talking about outlawing abortions, even though they didn't make any meaningful attempts to do so on a federal level when they controlled all three branches of the federal government.

          It's a go-to stance to take when their popularity wanes...

          Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

          by theatre goon on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 04:00:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I don't know which psychologists you're reading (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon, oldpunk, KVoimakas

      but it's pretty clear that the frequency with which people survive multiple suicide attempts that it's anything but impulsive - the depressed mull over suicide for a long time before attempting.

      The notion that someone who's not chronically depressed or suicidal will suddenly lose their mind and try to kill themselves out of a random impulse is one of the most idiotic you've tried to push here.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 04:23:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's of a piece (5+ / 0-)

        with the "gun-owners-will-snap-and-go-on-a-killing-spree" tripe. Fearful fantasies and imaginary what-if's play a significant role in the gun ban mentality. Facts are unwelcome.

        "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

        by happy camper on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 06:47:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's broader than that. The assumption that (4+ / 0-)

          all human beings are ticking time bombs of uncontrollable spontaneous impulses, whether violent or sexual, that needs forcible state intervention to prevent is central to the authoritarian mindset.

          To someone with this mindset, there is no class of mentally healthy, functional individual for whom these outbursts are sufficiently unlikely as to make the parental state's intrusion unnecessary.

          To those of us in the real world, the healthy, functional individual is recognized as the norm; and recognize that the state's role with regards the sane, law-abiding majority is twofold: to provide for functions they can not individually achieve with any efficiency (like safety nets), and to regulate behavior which might be beneficial on a small or individual scale, but creates collective hazards when everyone does it (resource management, etc.).

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 07:12:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  A mindset far more common (5+ / 0-)

            among conservatives than liberals, except when firearms are involved.

            "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

            by happy camper on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 07:23:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I dunno, I think it's more common among liberals (4+ / 0-)

              than we realize - think of all the times we hear blanket statements about the "stupidity" of the average person in threads.

              I think that the authoritarianism manifests itself differently: liberals manifest it in an overprotectiveness (remember, the plural of mother is mothers, but the plural of mothering is smothering), and conservatives focus on things like violations of ritual purity, which is why sex is so much of a focus for them.

              Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

              by Robobagpiper on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 07:28:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  About two years ago we moved to a small (15+ / 0-)

    town in Montana from San Francisco.  Guns are just a part of life out here, kids learn safety lessons at home, and while this is pure speculation I'm betting that most homes have one or more weapons.  Of course, living in a mountainous region weapons are primarily for protection against four-legged creatures roaming our neighborhoods.    

    The Montanans I've spoken with are very aware of gun safety, treat weapons with the respect they deserve, and are some of the most responsible gun owners I've ever met.  

    "It took us a couple of days because I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak." President Barack Obama 3/24/09

    by sfcouple on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 10:45:54 AM PDT

  •  We don't need bans, or more laws (14+ / 0-)

    We need a complete reworking of our society. The Republican mindset is destroying us from within. We need more, much more, going into Health and Mental Health solutions. We need more, much more, going into fighting poverty. We need to end Prohibition. Cannabis saves lives.
    And most of all we need to see that all Americans pay their fair share of the costs. Hello 1%, that means You!.
     

    All we need to do is pass a few more laws and we can change human nature. Promise. My Site

    by meagert on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 11:02:15 AM PDT

  •  have to trust the car next to you (11+ / 0-)

    not to drive you off the road or the one going in the opposite direction on a 2 lane road isn't going to drift across the lane because the driver was distracted/tired/having a stroke.

    people get fixated on the silliest things without regards to actual risk.

    rhetorically:  should garages be banned because someone can commit suicide by leaving the car running in one?

    a true dearth of critical thinking out there - someone died; ban everything

    "Hey Joe Walsh, when did you stop deadbeating your wife?"

    by wretchedhive on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 12:58:59 PM PDT

    •  Ban (8+ / 0-)

      Dihydrogen Monoxide, one of the most dangerous chemical compounds known to man!

      If you play Microsoft CD's backwards, you hear satanic things, but that's nothing, because if you play them forwards, they install Windows.

      by Unit Zero on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 01:20:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Water is more precisely named (0+ / 0-)

        Hydrogen Hydroxide.  And yes, it can be dangerous stuff, especially when tossed around by nature.

        How far does the right to bear arms go?  Can I have a Howitzer in my front yard?  How about an RPG?

        The issue I have with the gun lobby is the lack of limits they pursue.  The second amendment mentions regulation and militia's before the "right to bear arms".  This would imply that the founders wanted 1) regulation of the ownership of arms, and 2) thought that personal arms served a civil purpose.  Of course, at the time the constitution was written there were plenty of people that needed a weapon for protection and gathering food.

        Have times changed since then?  It has always seemed to me that the most ardent 2nd amendment defenders read the last words of that ponderous sentence, and ignore the first few words.

        •  We get some of these questions... (11+ / 0-)

          ...quite often.

          RPGs and Howitzers are more accurately termed "ordnance," rather than "arms," and are therefore not necessarily protected by the 2nd Amendment.

          I realize that may just sound like a semantic difference, or even a pedantic one -- but the definitions are different and important ones.

          Secondly, you seem to be reading the introductory clause of the 2nd Amendment as a restrictive one, rather than an explanatory one.

          It explains why the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed, it does not impose any limits on that right.  Restrictive language simply isn't there.

          So, it's not that the introductory words are ignored, it is just that they are actually taken in context.

          And this...

          Of course, at the time the constitution was written there were plenty of people that needed a weapon for protection and gathering food.
          ...has not necessarily changed qualitatively.  Granted, fewer people now use firearms for hunting than they used to, but many still do -- and self-defense is still an important right, as it always has been.

          Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

          by theatre goon on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 04:14:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well, only 1 per 1e7 of neutral water is ionic; so (4+ / 0-)

          the term hydrogen hydroxide (which refers to the ionic bond between H+ and OH-) would only cover one in ten million of them.

          Since the other 9999999 per 10 million are covalent, I would suspect that Dihydrogen Monoxide (which follows the nomenclature for covalent bonds) would be more appropriate.

          I'll let others resolve the confusion between ordinance and arms.

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 04:29:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  "Regulated" doesn't mean the same thing in (6+ / 0-)

          the language of the Constitution as it does in the 20th century bureaucratic state.

          You can't amend a Constitution via semantic drift.

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 07:17:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Funny story... (11+ / 0-)

        On the phone with a friend, I spent fifteen minutes talking about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide. Really got him full throttle engaged in learning about the under-the-radar dangers of this liquid that was being used in manufacturing plants across the nation and was just being released back into the environment.

        We hung up when he pulled into his driveway. Five minutes later, my phone is ringing. It's him. I pick up....

        "Dude. You're such an ass." (click).

        ROFL.

    •  It's simpler than that: (4+ / 0-)

      The maternalist authoritarian says: "I have a sad! There needs to be a law to force people to stop doing whatever gave me a sad!"

      The paternalist authoritarian says: "You did a dirty! There needs to be a law to punish you for doing a dirty!"

      When you distill it down, those who would have the state become their parent have the most infantile of political philosophies.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 04:26:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Actually there are a variety of laws limiting (0+ / 0-)

    access to automobiles and swimming pools, such as driver's licenses, vehicle licensing and registration, and (for pools) fencing requirements.  In terms of household chemicals, I'm not quite sure, but I know that spray paint can't be purchased by a minor, at least in my city.

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 03:33:16 PM PDT

    •  Local ordinances... (9+ / 0-)

      ...about swimming pools aren't really comparable here -- the Bill of Rights does not specifically protect the right to have a pool.  There is some debate to be had about automobiles, because of the right to travel, but that's probably outside the scope of this discussion.

      Even if it was a directly comparable situation, there are many local laws about firearms -- such as laws that guns can't be fired, without cause, inside city limits.

      I've seen very few serious arguments against such laws.

      And, it is my understanding that spray paint isn't available to minors because of its use in "huffing" primarily, and secondarily because of its use in vandalism (neither practice is, by the way, a protected Civil Right).

      There are similar laws about firearms, by the way -- generally, minors cannot purchase them.

      Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

      by theatre goon on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 04:25:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There are no restrictions on my buying a car.... (7+ / 0-)

      and using it on private property as much as I want, other than personal finances.

      •  In reality (5+ / 0-)

        if you try to buy a car at a dealer, you'll have a hell of a time without a driver's license. They'll want you to register the car and plate it. In some states, an unlicensed driver can't buy plates, a restriction intended to keep suspended and revoked drivers from having access to a vehicle. A private party won't care, but a dealer operates under a different set of rules.

        "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

        by happy camper on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 07:20:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Which might be... (5+ / 0-)

          ...roughly equivalent to the differences in buying a firearm from a FFL and a private individual.

          You have to undergo the NICS check to buy from a professional dealer, and, in Texas, at least, while it's not necessary to have a CCL, it does make the process much faster and easier.

          Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

          by theatre goon on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 07:30:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Huh? (3+ / 0-)

          I register my vehicle at the DMV.  I get temp plates from the dealer, generally good for 3 to 30 days, varies by state.

          Again, I can buy a car, take it home, and run it on my own property without any licence or registration.

          I'd probably have to do the title-of-ownership transfer at the dealer, but that is not the public-roads-driving registration.

          I can have a third party drive the car home, or use a trailer.

          •  You can (4+ / 0-)

            drive around your property all you want--we did it as kids with an old Rambler that had all the glass removed. Good times!

            As I mentioned, in some states (like mine) a person who loses their license may, depending on the offense, not be allowed to title or register a car in their name. A person with no license raises immediate red flags at the dealership. You'll have to prove that you're not revoked, you just don't have a license.

            I'm not saying it can't be done, just that you'd have a hard time.

            Last time I bought a car, the dealer did everything, title, registration, the works.

            So... what is this DMV of which you speak? In MI almost nobody actually goes to the DMV. They mail your new license plate to replace the paper one you got at the dealer. Plate renewal is by mail. Drivers license renewal is usually by mail. If you buy something from a private individual you'll have to show up to transfer the title, but most stuff can be handled without ever setting foot in the office.

            "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

            by happy camper on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 08:48:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hmmm, I may not be fully up to date on this.... (4+ / 0-)

              I've never bought a new car in my life, though I've bought 2 or 3 used vehicles from dealers.  I don't recall any of the registration being done at the dealership, just the title signed and they mailed it in, handed me temp dealer plates (paper) and wished the best of luck...

              But all those transactions occured while I've been non-resident miltary in other states, and for us the process is often different.

              I may have a rather different perspective on the process....  (GASP!)  8>)

              •  I think it probably varies by state. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PavePusher, oldpunk, KVoimakas

                Last vehicle I bought we did the registration at the dealer, online.  They gave us a temporary copy, the "official" copy came in the mail after about a week.

                Didn't specifically need a driver's license, but did need official photo ID -- the license was the easiest (state ID or passport would have been equally acceptable).  Of course, we would have needed that for the check we used to pay, anyway.

                And, it seems that more things are titled than used to be -- we bought an ATV (Ranger, rather than something like a four-wheeler), and it was titled.  The last four-wheeler I bought wasn't.

                According to the dealership, roughly speaking, anything that can be individually insured now is usually titled.  How accurate that is, I haven't bothered to check into...

                Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                by theatre goon on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 01:09:06 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Yet none of these restrictions (5+ / 0-)

      are meant to deny access by adults to cars or pools, but only seek to ensure safe use. The sort of restrictions pushed by some gun control proponents go far beyond keeping minors and felons from possessing weapons, and attempt to make it difficult if not impossible for law abiding adults to own firearms.

      I know of no safety advocates whose ultimate goal is the elimination of swimming pools, cars, or spray paint, whereas the avowed goal of many, if not most, gun control advocates is to reduce and ultimately eliminate firearms in civilian hands.

      "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

      by happy camper on Tue Jul 03, 2012 at 07:08:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site