Summations Only

Not surprisingly to those who know me, I go with option (2), that this is the kind of armed insurrection that the fledgling Federal government envisaged militias organized and trained the way the National Guard is trained and organized, in order to put down insurrections that threatened the sovereignty of the US.For evidence I refer to the John Brown insurrection and the subsequent action of the Federal government.Note that the real purpose is not to occupy the park, but to cause an armed confrontation that can act as a recruiting tool for other groups and cause an uprising in the west.In this way they are acting the same as middle-east terrorists, the Taliban, and ISIS.Enjoy

That sounds about right. And according to the vacuous reasoning being proposed here, 10,000 people aren't worth worrying since about smoking, for example, killed 40 times more people in this country. Similarly why worry about 59,000 Americans dying in the Vietnam war over a couple of decades or so, or a few deaths per year from HIV, etc. Why do we even have seat belts or helmet laws? According to one opinion, even having a debate about such stuff is immoral.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

But don't you know that the 2nd Amendment exists independent and without context to the rest of the Constitution.#2

It's always struck me as ironic that those who most fanatically cite protecting the US from some sort of tyrannical regime as a reason to have guns are also the most likely to use violence to overthrow (or attempt to overthrow) democratically elected governance that they disagree with.I'm not a US citizen, I don't share the reverence that many US citizens hold for the US constitution (with sufficient political will any law can be changed, especially one called an "amendment") and I obviously don't share the historical cultural perspective that leads one to consider guns specifically as a symbol of liberty. So unsurprisingly option 2 makes more sense to me. But looking at the wording you cite the specific reference to suppressing insurrections seems most relevant to the question you ask.

So the words"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..."are imaginary? Two for two ...Enjoy

First part of my answer was tongue in cheek. Just in case some people didn't get that.

What do you think of this law?Bill Text - AB-1014 Gun violence restraining orders.

quote:

---

Straggler
"Putting all that together gives a figure of between 10,500 and 13,500 reduction in suicides per year.

​

'back of a fag packet' calculation but I'm not sure how else this could be estimated. Happy to see a better method of estimation."

​

NoNukes
That sounds about right. And according to the vacuous reasoning being proposed here, 10,000 people aren't worth worrying since about smoking, for example, killed 40 times more people in this country. Similarly why worry about 59,000 Americans dying in the Vietnam war over a couple of decades or so, or a few deaths per year from HIV, etc. Why do we even have seat belts or helmet laws? According to one opinion, even having a debate about such stuff is immoral.

---

I don't know where to start.First nobody is talking about banning all guns - not even close. (so much for stopping these 10,000-14,000 suicides)2nd, allowing people to have guns isn't an issue of the state forcing anything on anybody.I blame the suicides and mass shootings (as well as the post 1980/1990s obesity epidemic among the poor) on prescription psychotropic drugs and many other factors. I just started a thread on SSRIs and their effect but that is just the tip of the iceberg.My biggest objection to "gun control" is that it includes the issue of forcing children on psychotropic drugs.The issue of guns is just one tiny little corner of a much broader picture. Straggler. Is you reasoning incorrect? Is your data incorrect? I can be 100% correct but it mostly misses out on hundreds of points.This reminds me of a debate I saw between Kent Hovind and a Professor. The Ph D professor responded to Hovinds claim, that water causes the geologic strata, by sayings that "just because something is true in one part of the universe doesn't mean is applies to everything" or something like that. Gun control advocates remind me of creationists.

Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied

quote:

---

Natural News
By Peter Breggin, Psychiatrist, Author
March 20, 2013

​

There have been recent calls for a national Mental Health Registry, and then additional calls to link such a registry to gun licensing. In the dreadful wake of Newtown, both the left and the right and the current US federal administration are demanding that we tighten mental health statutes to make it easier and even mandatory for health care providers including psychiatrists and psychotherapists to incarcerate people on suspicion of perpetrating violence.

​

In a recent blog, I evaluated all the ways psychiatry and individual psychiatrists already have too much authority to lock up American citizens. I’ve pointed out how ineffective that power has proven in preventing violence.

​

Indeed, as many are now learning, psychiatric drugs can cause violence and have contributed to school shootings and other mayhem. Here I want to remind and to warn that psychiatry has been and continues to be the cause of some of the greatest abuses in the Western World. In the aftermath of the school shootings, psychiatry should not be allowed to garner even more power.

​

Consider as a start the several-hundred year history of the state mental hospital system. Given the power to lock up people at their own discretion, psychiatrists put away untold millions of people over several hundred years in the Western World. In its heyday in the 1930s, by turning innumerable state hospital patients into guinea pigs, psychiatry invented and practiced lobotomy, insulin coma shock, and electroshock. Despite overwhelming evidence for its damaging effects, electroshock continues to flourish and to be pushed by advocates, probably afflicting several hundreds of thousand patients each year in the US.

​

MORE (and with hyperlinks)

---

I wish Bregin would talk about how he ran a fascist from Spain, Jose Delgado, out of the country in the early 70s. Delgado took advantage of the racist climate in the country, and was influential in teaching professors at Harvard, Yale, and other universities the benefits of removing a walnut size piece of brain from patients. They were so political that they testified to congress that they could "cure" ghetto rioters.Bregin has to testify in courtrooms today to keep the state from forcing children to be head-shocked with enough electricity that if it were the heart, it would be stopped. They say ECT treatment is much better than it was in the 70s. So they say.Perhaps the psychiatric system is causing more suicides by putting children through trauma. Perhaps the prison system causes trauma.Again, nobody is talking about banning guns. Guns aren't going away under any proposal. Lets look at the actual issues please.

You asked the question:

quote:

---

If we actually have a real ban on guns (which isn't on any agenda in the real world of American politics), including total 100% confiscation, then how many suicides will go down according to the studies?

---

How did you expect that to be answered other than in terms of an estimate based on the available data? Sadly true. But that was the question you asked. Huh? I assume you have data to back this claim up? International comparisons showing a link between gun control laws and the number of children on psychotic drugs in different nations, for example? Strangely that is pretty much how the rest of the developed world sees the American view of guns. Particularly when we see yet another unnecessary mass shooting involving little kids and suchlike and then see the interviews of people proclaiming that what is needed in response are more guns, armed primary school teachers and the bizarre notion that the need for relentless vigilance and locking oneself away behind ever more security is somehow a symbol of Liberty and freedom. The pro-gun US response to the sort of mass shootings that are depressingly regular in the US but once in a generation events elsewhere in the developed world just leaves the rest of the world looking at you guys and your nutty relationship with guns in bewilderment.

Your link was unaccompanied by any explanation or argument, but I did click on the link. It looks like the full text of a California bill about restraining orders involving guns, but it is many pages long with many clauses and sub-clauses. What aspects of it did you want to discuss?--Percy

Current example in Oregon with the Bundy mob (I think we can all agree to call it a mob), seizing public land and then claiming it should be turned over to ... the people ...Disagreeing is one thing but threatening the lives of law officials is another. Or the interpretation of it by the Supreme Court returning to previous interpretations. Indeed it can happen, but it may take a loooong time and a lot more incidents involving the loss of innocent lives. And what we have in Oregon is a borderline armed insurrection. Whether they are actually dangerous enough to engage with is another question. John Brown attacked rather than occupied.Personally I don't think they are a real danger to anyone but themselves at this point, except that they are setting another precedent for similar actions.The small numbers also indicate low support and low need for engagement -- a single #blacklivesmatter protest draws many more people than they have managed to scrounge up.But another problem here is the death-wish of these extremists, the desire to be martyrs to a (silly) cause. They want confrontation so they can be heroes to followers who will then rise up. This is no different from radical terrorist organizations elsewhere in the world.Time for some alternative action, perhaps arresting Cliven Bundy ...Enjoy

Likewise I clicked the link and started trying to work out what the proposed action or point of discussion was, but gave up when it wasn't clear what point CS is attempting to make.

The Editorial Board of the New York Times today offered their opinion about The Hear-Nothing Gun Crowd, making the point that all the exaggeration and distortion is coming from one side. Some excerpts:

quote:

---

The current fight over gun control...is a howling storm of misrepresentation, sadly almost entirely from one side.
...
And yet, as happens every time, the response from the anti-regulation crowd...was to deliberately misstate what Mr. Obama was intending. The president said he wanted to increase the number of government agents to process background checks and make the existing system more effective. He also plans to modestly expand the number of dealers who need federal licenses under current law and said he would ask Congress for more money to combat mental illness.

​

The Republican machine’s reaction took none of that into account.
...
Given the situation, it’s hard to imagine a serious conversation about guns as long as politicians in thrall to the gun lobby choose to misrepresent what supporters of gun safety laws are actually saying. Those supporters, by the way, include the 90 percent of Americans who favor universal background checks for gun buyers.

---

Anyone here against improved background checks and dealer licensing?--Percy

I certainly am not. And I am a gun owner.I was watching BBC news yesterday and they were interviewing a couple of gun shop owners out of Tennessee. Interestingly, they were actually very much in favor of Obama's assertions because they indicated it would likely increase business for them and reduce the likelihood of guns being transferred between parties through the back channels.Like anything though, the fringe is usually the loudest, so their voices are the ones being utilized on our cable news outlets like CNN, MSNBC or Fox. Similar to other discussions or debates in our country, like abortion, gay rights, etc., it seems our news agencies are more concerned with putting on a spectacle as opposed to actually having a cogent discussion on a particular topic.