Skip to main content

View Diary: Thoughts on the Gun Debate (75 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Couple of reasons.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    noway2

    1) A suicide only takes one shot, so it is irrelevant to a discussion of an AWB or magazine ban
    2) suicide is carried out in numerous ways, see Japan, which has a far higher suicide rate than the US

    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

    by FrankRose on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:19:04 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  So you would be OK if we enacted Japan's gun laws? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber, CwV, LilithGardener

      I mean, you say the suicides will happen any way so we might just as well give it a try right?  Or perhaps you are saying that the rate of suicides will be higher with strict gun laws?

      Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

      by DefendOurConstitution on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:41:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Neither. I am saying that suicide rate is (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        noway2

        unrelated to availability to firearms.

         

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 11:57:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Au contraire, studies clearly show that gun availa (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CwV, mudfud27, LilithGardener

          buility is a risk factor, especially for young people.

          Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

          by DefendOurConstitution on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 12:16:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Dodge #3 (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener

          Baldfaced lie.
          Or major ignorance.

          If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

          by CwV on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 12:48:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  You may be saying that (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener

          But you would be demonstrably wrong.

          Care to say something better instead?

          •  Best tell Japan (0+ / 0-)

            But if you fear firearms so much, then don't own one...and let others make that decision themselves.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 07:14:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So you're fine (0+ / 0-)

              handing out weapons to the suicidal?

              Nice.

              •  Let me give you a hand, big-shooter..... (0+ / 0-)

                straw man
                noun
                3.
                a fabricated or conveniently weak or innocuous person, object, matter, etc., used as a seeming adversary or argument: The issue she railed about was no more than a straw man.
                Origin:
                1585–95

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 10:52:22 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  If you say so, killer (0+ / 0-)

                  But from what you've written so far, that would be the effect of your approach. So fill us in: how does what you advocate keep guns out of the hands of the suicidal?

                •  The strawman... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mudfud27

                  ...in this comment thread pissing match is your claim that suicides are somehow not a part of the equation.  The simple fact is that the easy availability of guns makes it much, much easier for vulnerable people to make the ultimate wrong decision.

                  •  So are you espoucing banning all guns? (0+ / 0-)

                    After all, magazine size is irrelevant to suicide.

                    If suicide is truly something you want to lower, then focus on fixing the suicidal. Push for expanding mental health.

                    As Japan, Lithuania, Austria and thirty other nations that have both less guns & a higher suicide rate, banning guns is not an effective method of preventing suicide.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 11:20:25 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  "So are you espoucing banning all guns? " (0+ / 0-)

                      Absolutely. Why not?

                      If suicide is truly something you want to lower, then focus on fixing the suicidal.
                      Yeah, the problem is that your beloved guns convert the suicidal into the dead before we can fix them in ways that other methods (knives, meds, rope, etc) don't. Do you just not understand this simple fact? It is the finding of every significant study on suicide as a public health problem.

                      I will repeat: guns are a big part of why we don't get the chance to "fix the suicidal". Sheesh.

                      •  "Why not?" (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        andalusi

                        The Constitution. Individual liberties. Freedoms of innocent people.

                        "beloved guns"
                        Beloved liberty, actually.

                        "Not understand this simple fact"
                        Again. 33 countries with gun control has higher suicide rates than the US.
                        Guns aren't the boogyman that you think they are. Stop cringing in fear & stop trying to take liberties away from innocent Americans for your irrational phobia.
                        Your fears don't trump other's liberties.

                        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                        by FrankRose on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 10:03:06 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Why not? (0+ / 0-)

                          "The Constitution"
                          The document was written to be amended and changed as needed. Obviously the bar is high, but it's pretty clear we've reached that point.

                          "individual liberties"
                          Meaningless RW pablum. How about my liberty to not have chunks of metal fired at high speed into valuable organs? Plenty of objects and actions are restricted when the benefit of having them is outweighed by their danger to society, many of them are even weapons. Prescription drugs. Fissile material. On and on. This is a non-argument.

                          "Freedoms of innocent people"
                          There is nothing innocent about all this killing the gun owners are doing/enabling.

                          33 countries with gun control has higher suicide rates than the US.
                          That's nice. Again, the research shows that when there are fewer guns, the completed suicide rate goes down. All you are emphasizing is that those countries would do well to not have more guns. That doesn't really help your argument.
                          Stop cringing in fear & stop trying to take liberties away from innocent Americans for your irrational phobia.
                          There is nothing "irrational" from my side here, citing academic research and pointing out the danger to our society from your fetish.

                          Simply put, if you want to live in society your "liberties" cannot be unlimited. You have proven you cannot have guns, so they will go away.

                          It would be nice if, instead of coming back with silly meaningless things like "you can't take guns because freedom" you actually cited some kind of risk/benefit analysis that favored widespread gun ownership, or tried in some other way to have a rational argument. I know that is a losing proposition for your side, but it would be much more convincing than the "individual liberty" whine.

                          •  "Pretty clear we have reached that point"? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Patrick Costighan

                            The AWB can't even come to a vote, but you think you have the support to change an amendment in the Bill of Rights?!?
                            Good luck with that.

                            "Individual liberties"
                            You find liberties to be RW?!? I think homosexuals, women whom support abortion, everyone whom believes warrantless wiretaps to be unacceptable would disagree.

                            "How about my liberty to not have chunks of metal fired at high speed into valuable organs?"
                            Thus the crimes of murder, attempted murder, assault, etc.

                            " Again, the research shows that when there are fewer guns, the completed suicide rate goes down. "
                            The real world & 33 nations disagree.
                             But have it your way...if you think that owning a gun would lead to an unintentional suicide, then don't own a gun, & allow others to make the same choice.
                            Neat how freedom works, innit?

                            "silly meaningless things like "you can't take guns because freedom""
                            I don't find individual freedom written in the Bill of Rights, to be either 'silly' nor 'meaningless'.
                            It is telling that you do.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 02:47:03 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If owning a gun is dangerous to oneself then (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose

                            we should arm every criminal with an AK47 so they can shoot themselves.

                          •  Again (0+ / 0-)

                            It would be nice if you or your ilk could respond with anything other than meaningless platitudes. Alas.

                          •  The Constitution is 'meaningless'? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Patrick Costighan

                            Good luck with that.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sat Mar 09, 2013 at 11:59:56 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  Actually (0+ / 0-)
                      As Japan, Lithuania, Austria and thirty other nations that have both less guns & a higher suicide rate, banning guns is not an effective method of preventing suicide.
                      Your examples only imply an even higher suicide rate for those countries if they had better access to guns. No one is saying that banning guns can prevent all suicides, but it is well studied and accepted that fewer guns leads to fewer completed suicide attempts for any given situation. That is the data, you simply cannot dispute it no matter how much your gut wants you to. Try using the brain instead.
        •  That's a flat out lie - whether you know it or (0+ / 0-)

          not is not my concern.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 05:44:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Dodge #1 & 2 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener

      Not talking about how many shots nor is this only about slaughter weapons or magazines.
      Nor are we talking about Japan.

      If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

      by CwV on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 12:47:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Both are related to suicide. (0+ / 0-)

        Which is the subject.

        If you wish to discuss the subject at hand instead of......whatever it is you are doing, feel free to respond.
        Otherwise, why don't you and DefendOurConstitution discuss something? You two seem interested in the same level of discourse

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 01:40:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Do you even care how many murder-suicides happen (0+ / 0-)

      every single day?

      Do you really think that an argument that posits something that is true, "A murder-suicide only takes two bullets, therefore ____ (you fill in the blank)" will ever pass a laugh test?

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 05:02:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Is that irrelevant because assault weapons can't (0+ / 0-)

      fire a single shot?

      I'm confused.

      Re the number of ways - here in NYC we have a lot of bridges and tall buildings, and take various safety measures to make it harder to jump.

      Some people still do jump, but it creates a small window of time where intervention is possible that saves a life.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 05:04:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Are you saying that suicides don't count for (0+ / 0-)

      purposes of discussing the AWB?

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 05:43:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site