The NRA has blocked gun violence research for 20 years

and given that 80% or more of illegal gun use is perpetrated by people who CANNOT LEGALLY OWN GUNS at the time they perpetrate the crime, its far more telling. There are many times more DGUs by those who legally own firearms than CRIMINAL misuses of firearms by those who could legally own the firearm at the time of crime

- - - Updated - - -

you fail because most of those deaths are either suicides or people who cannot own guns legally at the time they commit a murder.

 

First and foremost, the majority of all firearm-related deaths in the united states are suicides. They are not relevant to the discussion, and simply will not be discussed. They are no different than someone ending their life through a drug overdose, jumping off a building, hanging themselves, stepping in front of a moving vehicle, throwing themselves down a flight of stairs, or simply slitting their wrists. If these individuals wish to end their existence, then they most certainly will do so, regardless of what method is available to them.

Second, firearms do not in any way, shape, or form, cause these incidents to occur. Firearms do not compel an individual to act in a felonious manner. Firearms do not override personal accountability, and motivate someone to act in a way that they would otherwise not if a firearm was simply not available. If someone uses a firearm in a criminal manner, then they are prone to criminal behavior and will act upon such impulses regardless.

Firearms ownership is a constitutional right, recognized and affirmed by the supreme court. It is not an indulgence, it is not a privilege granted to you by government, and it is devoid of a need to be balanced. The supreme court has even stated, on two separate occasions, that they outright reject the argument that the second amendment must be balanced against vague concepts such as public safety.

 

Go take them away from the bad guys.

 

What's the penalty for killing yourself with a gun? We really need some laws to punish them when they kill themselves with a gun.

I'd like to suggest you read what you're writing before you post it. It's really dumb.

 

Um. No. The fact they were able to get a gun was the problem... not the fact that there were circumstances.

- - - Updated - - -

no, we make sure they can't get a gun to start with. Will some of them walk out into traffic or jump off buildings instead? Yeah, maybe. Some won't. So let's say we take away the guns and we cut those suicides in half. That's probably be a good thing.

 

Of the 22k gun suicides in 2015, 19k were men. 17k were white men over the age of 17. The only way to prevent those suicides is, as you say, to make it totally illegal to purchase and own guns, and to take away all of the guns that are legally owned by adult white men who have them now.

In other words, you have no solution.

 

Half of the 70 million gunowners aint just giving their property to you, Adolph. In fact, millions of them will kill you if you try this. So go float your utopian fantasies to somebody who is dumb enough to believe them.

 

What law would you pass that would stop people from killing themselves, and how would you punish them after they committed suicide?

What's utterly ridiculous is that you seem to think there's a correlation between gun ownership and suicide.

The countries with the highest suicide rates in the world have little, if any, access to firearms.

Belgium and France have a higher suicide rate than the US, despite our vast differences in firearm ownership.

 

how many people are you willing to kill or have die to enforce a moronic law like that? gun bans are LEAST effective on those who misuse guns

- - - Updated - - -

He obviously is unaware about the war on drugs. He thinks banning stuff will keep people from getting the stuff

 

Funny how you repeat this hooey like you don't know it is hooey.

 

Why do you want to remove my civil rights because of criminals acting criminally?

 

What you propose is an impossibility, both on the physical and on the legal levels. There is quite literally no way to prevent someone from acquiring a firearm, and then later on using it for the purpose of committing suicide.

Which, again, cannot be done.

You incorrectly assume that a reduction in legally owned firearms will result in a corresponding reduction in suicides, suggesting you believe the firearm itself to be the root cause of the suicide. This is incorrect. Firearms do not, in any way, cause someone to become suicidal, or motivate them to end their own existence. Such tendencies and thoughts exist long before the firearm is acquired, and will be acted upon regardless of whether or not one is possessed.

Beyond such, there is no point in either yourself, or society in general seeking to interfere with suicidal individuals seeking to end their own existence. They have made the decision that they no longer wish to live, and it is ultimately their decision to make, rather than anyone else. There is no point in expending finite resources to prolong the existence of those that no longer wish to exist.

 

Because I don't think gun ownership is a civil right. There's also no good reason for an average citizen to have unfettered access to guns.

 

You're entitled to your own opinion. You aren't entitled to your own reality. In this country, gun ownership is a Constituionally protected individual right and always has been.

What other rights would you like to restrict? Wouldn't we be better off if we only only voters who can pass a test to demonstrate competence in civics and economics to vote?

 

Pray tell why not? What is the methodology you use in determining whether or not something is a civil right in your mind? How do you reach such a conclusion?

Exactly what is this so-called "unfettered access" that you are referring to? There are a great many restrictions on firearms, their use, their acquisition, and countless other aspects.

 

Your opinion on the subject does not coincide with reality.

 

Why? The average citizens are not the ones racking up the gun murder stats. Disarming the average citizen just emboldens the criminals.

 

Do you have a source?

Kellerman was debunked thoroughly because of his biased method. He focused on crime ridden cities like philadelphia. It'll be like going over to Iraq and doing the same process.

 

60% of those deaths are suicides. Only 11,000 are homocides and most of those happen in gang ridden cities which so happened to be strict on gun control.

 

You have yet to prove that limiting gun access will decrease suicide rates. Japan has a near complete ban on guns and they have a higher suicide rate than we do.

 

I'd like to see the law that will...
- Prevent someone who owns a gun from shooting himself with it
- Prevent a person who has the right to own a gun from buying one

With regards to gun control and suicide, I've asked for this several times and have yet to receive a substantive response.

 

You may want to 1) Read what the purpose of the Bill of Rights is and 2) Read the Bill of Rights

- - - Updated - - -

Frickin France has a higher suicide rate than we do.

You'd think they'd try harder, but then, they don't really have any facts to use so they have to go the smoke and mirrors route.

 

Tobacco and cigarettes are not harmful if they are not smoked.
Guns are not harmful if they are not fired.
In both cases intended use of the product as intended by the manufacturer carries risk of death.

 

No. Intended usage of firearms as intended by the manufacturer doesn't harm the possessor.

Ownership of firearms is to prevent the serious bodily injury or death of it's possessor.

 

How?