Summations Only

He made an unsupported assertion. There was no indisputable fact because you cannot empirically count the number of people who didn't report having been suicidal but were inconvenienced back to sobriety. Seriously, contemplate that for a minute.Even supposing it was, how that is a good reason to repeal a very important amendment to the Constitution is still elusive. Reducing the availability of guns certainly would reduce gun deaths, absolutely, just like reducing one's driving time or reducing the amount of vehicles on the road would result in less vehicular deaths. What is in dispute is that people find other ways to kill themselves in the absence of other things. Changing externalities doesn't change the inward fact that they want to die. I would think there would be no significant difference between the two. We all agree that more guns mean more gun deaths just like more cars mean more car deaths and more availability to electricity means more electrocutions, etc, ad infinitum. But as I've stated, short of uninventing the gun, do you really think repealing a nation's second right is the solution? If you want to see an exponential increase in gun deaths, that's the surest way right there, because the thronging masses won't go quietly or without a fight. It's too ingrained within the culture at this point.Moreover, who do you think runs the nation's police force and military? That's right. All proponents of guns. So, with that inescapable reality, my point in all of this is to come up with a common sense approach, not a total abridging of rights.Any suggestions?

So are guns. Just ask British police officers if they want to go unarmed again and see what they'll say. My concern for human life could just as easily be demonstrated by desiring the availability of guns to protect oneself and the life of other innocents from thugs who, I can assure you with or without a law, would access guns to harm others. So it's really rather ironic to say how calloused I must be without looking at the flipside of your argument.If you were truly so concerned, you would also seek to ban police officers from having guns because, according to gun control advocates, having the law is enough to thwart it, yes?The fact that police officers carry around guns at all, especially in places that have outlawed private arms, really just makes the point for me.

I said that in the absence of guns, people find other means to kill themselves. Tangle quoted me saying that, and then stated that I was "wrong," even though that is an indisputable fact. I then restated the question as simply as possible, and he conceded that people do kill themselves by other means. Jesus Christ, people killing themselves with guns is not a good reason to ban guns anymore than it is a reason ban any other tool people use to kill themselves with. That's my sole point! You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Then let me put it more simply. You'll never do away with suicide or homicide. Ever. In light of that, perhaps we should be looking at practical solutions versus knee-jerk reactions. Instead of getting rid of things, maybe we should be figuring out why people are either so violent or so suicidal.We're having a serious discussion here [trying to, anyhow], but some of the responses are hard not to respond with incredulity or sarcasm because of how asinine they are.

Even I agree with your sentiment here. Just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean it's wise to employ it. I see these open carry guys doing more harm to their own cause than good, as it appears to be needless hectoring and the creation of self-fulfilling prophecies.Actually, a lot of gun advocates either don't like the law or how some people are going about it.

It used to be that no British police were allowed to be armed, but that changed. I want to say that changed in the 1990's but it might have been earlier.

If that is the case, then I graciously concede that point.

But is that a good enough reason to deny people the right of self-protection? But surely they DO given the fact that people commit suicide by other means. Well, since we're on the subject of impulsivity and deterrence methods, perhaps having a handgun has additionally saved lives. I could just as easily glibly say, "less availability to protect oneself leads to more deaths."So how do you measure the good with the bad? No more idiotic than saying we should get rid of handguns because people might use them to kill themselves. Percy's argument went over the utility of those things. Well, a gun has a utility to, specifically to protect when one's life is in danger. People will use various objects to kill themselves with, but we don't ban those things because their purposed use outweighs the minority instances of misuse. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

Right, "marked reductions in suicides by gassing," which means other methods are explored as evidenced by the fact that people every single day kill themselves in many, many different ways. You close a door, people go through a window. You close a window, people break down a wall. You put up a fence, people climb over it. You put barbed wire up, people crawl under it.Many cities have put up fences to help mitigate the amount of bridge jumpers. Has it worked to a large degree? Yes, it has! But has it stopped suicides by other means? No, it hasn't.Therefore, again, as is evidenced by the thousands of people who commit suicide every year, different methods are utilized. People determined to die will succeed eventually. So if you get rid of guns, people will kill themselves by other means. That is absolutely, positively an indisputable fact so obvious that I feel silly even stating it.Lastly, how can you control for people who were once suicidal but changed their minds if they never reported it? How can you truly know the efficacy?

The part where you keep overlooking the obvious. If outlawing gun ownership was the solution, then Mexico and Russia should be at the bottom of the list. But their homicide rate is much higher than even the United States. If the accessibility of guns alone could account for the reason why there are so many homicides, then Switzerland should be the Wild fucking West. But it isn't, which means there are other factors at play that you are intentionally overlooking just so you can claim some kind of moral victory.There are a myriad of reasons why one country is more prone to violence than another. To suggest that the availability of guns could alone solely or even greatly determine that is intellectually bankrupt, because it simply is only telling one piece of a very complex story.

Is that a serious question? Of course not. No objections. It is possible to forfeit your Constitutional rights. Essentially that's what incarceration is.

For starters, I am typing this on my phone so I can't really cut and paste links or quotes easily, so please forgive the brevity and lack of direct quotations. I will not respond to every point you made because it is a very lengthy post.1. Suicides, just like homicides, can and do fluctuate for a number of reasons. So to suggest that the obvious reason is because people were inconvenienced out of it is disingenuous and misleading. You couldn't possibly account for the myriad of reasons one decides to go through with a suicide or to abstain from it. So just saying that looking at the rates of suicides can alone can determine that the inconvenience of it is what saves their lives is pure speculation. Now, I agreed that putting up fences on bridges would certainly make it more difficult for a bridge jumper to commit suicide in that manner. What I have said repeatedly is that people determined to die WILL commit suicide eventually. Note how I am specifically discussing people determined to die. I said nothing about impulsive suicides and never disagreed that people can and are talked down off the ledge. My only question is, so what when people can either impulsively commit suicide with a gun or a razor? If your entire argument hinges on the availability of a gun that impulsive people can use, tell me how much more available high heights, ligatures for strangulation, or razors are available. Infinitely more available, Percy! But you, Tangle, and Straggler conveniently turn a blind eye to that or minimize their relevance. Well look at how people kill themselves in the U.K. It perfectly demonstrates what I've been saying -- that take away guns, people find different means. And if that's the case, then your entire argument for suicide being a good reason for banning guns falls apart. So no wonder you feel compelled to completely deflect the most obvious issues.Therefore your A to B premise about it being a good reason to deny firearms is refuted if you can't come up with a good reason those items as well.You then go on to belabor a point about how truly obnoxious it is to open a series of blister packs. People die by overdose all the time. So whether it's inconvenient or not is immaterial to the point that it obviously has done very little.You then go on to discuss nations that have high gun control and high suicide rates and have no answer for it. Well, let me help you with it. Guns are a straw man; a boogie man used to explain all the evil in the world. As I've repeatedly said, but you keep denying the relevance, is that people will kill themselves with it without guns. That being an indisputable fact shown by the data should be enough to dismiss suicide as a reasonable reason for banning guns.Yes, I misread it. I thought both instances were UNsuccessful. My apologies for misreading.I'm not going to continue to beat this dead horse. What I was addressing was what Tangle directly quoted me on. Go look again what he quoted me on and what he denied.As for less guns being available would result in less gun deaths, I agreed. I also stated that less vehicles on the road would result in less vehicular deaths because both are obvious. If electricity was less available, there would be less electrocution a too. You are cherry picking. If your condemnation for guns is that they do what they're designed to do, then where's your moral outrage for anything else that does the same?You then go on to complain about how I'm misstating points or whatever. No, I'm just stating the obvious because no one is willing to deal with it. It's a demonstration of how your arguments are easily denuded with a modicum of common sense.Final analysis: suicide does not make a good argument for banning everyone from the right to self-protection.

Until you can explain how it can be known that inconveniencing suicidals is the reason why overall suicide has lowered, then it is a bare assertion. Tangle offered the rates of suicide as being the way to know, which makes zero sense, since there are numerous factors to account for why suicide rates fluctuate -- the health of the local economy, unemployment rates, high crime areas, high rates of divorce or disease, poor health, depression, environmental factors.... Take your pick, but JUST looking at rates doesn't explain anything substantive, least of all that increasing the inconvenience can explain it so definitively.No, I don't accept it at face value because there is a conspicuous lack of explanations on how to link one with the other. Correlation does not equal causation. Just because ice cream sales and crime rates increase in the summer doesn't mean that one has anything to do with the other, and just because the rate of suicide declined after measures were put in to place does not necessarily mean that there is a causal relationship. And even supposing there was a causal relationship, is that a good reason to deny the right of self-protection to millions of people? If you were being objective, you would also look at the number of people whose lives were saved because of the availability of a gun.As for guns being used on unintended persons is at least a worthy gun control talking point. If you'd like to explore that and abandon the retarded argument of suicide, I'd be happy to shift gears. Seriously, suicide is just about the weakest argument one could use to push a gun ban.As to your observation that gun control opponents and proponents speaking two different languages, that is probably true. I have heard of "gun drills" being run in small school districts, but those are not the norm in most school districts.

Not only is it likely, it's happening right now. Gun sales have spiked dramatically because there is a fear that Obama will use recent tragedies to change laws. Really this demonstrates what I've long said, which is that if curbing gun violence is the end game, then this is the worst way to go about it, since it will increase bloodshed. It will drive a wedge between government officials and an already paranoid public. I think as Obama transitions out of office, he will push for his most bold legislation to date to cement his legacy.

None of them, actually! We didn't know what was going to be rolling out of the door given his 2013 proposal which I did take issue with (at least on some issues). Now that the proposal has been unveiled, I don't take issue with any of the measures. This is common sense gun control that doesn't appear to infringe on current rights. As long as there isn't some underhanded fine print and as long as there isn't something more embedded in some other bill, I take no issue with the proposals.

This is Mean World Syndrome fearmongering. "Go off without warning at any time?" Yes, that perfectly describes how guns operate. You make it sound as if they have a will of their own.So lets suppose that we pass the most draconian laws possible and completely ban private ownership of firearms tomorrow. How do you propose to get the guns off the streets after turning law-abiding citizens into criminals overnight?You have the laws now, but you don't have the most important element... the guns. There are twice as many guns in the United States as there are people and a whole lot of very pissed off, armed people. Now what? Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.