Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Wikipedia wrote:
Gun violence in the United States results in thousands of deaths and thousands more injuries annually.[1] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms (excluding BB and pellet guns) were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) [2] and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000),[3] 21,175 by suicide with a firearm,[4] 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm,[4] and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent"[5] for a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms (excluding firearm deaths due to legal intervention). 1.3% of all deaths in the country were related to firearms.[1][6]

In 2010, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 67% of all homicides in the U.S. were conducted using a firearm.[7] According to the FBI, in 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns.[8] 61% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. are suicides.[9] In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicides, and 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the U.S.[10] In 2010, 358 murders were reported involving a rifle while 6,009 were reported involving a handgun; another 1,939 were reported with an unspecified type of firearm.[11]

In 2010, gun violence cost U.S. taxpayers approximately $516 million in direct hospital costs.[12]

Of course you may well consider 33,000 deaths a year to be trivial.

It is trivial. It's still a tiny fraction of 1% of our population. When over 99% of the population remains unaffected by gun violence it's not anywhere close to being a major problem.

2/3rds of those 33,000 deaths are suicides and if people choose to end their own life that's a choice they made. You can't equate suicide with violent crime and murder.

Can I tell my boss to stop worrying about those pesky veteran suicides then?

If worrying about them is part of the job description than your boss should probably worry about them. Veterans should have access to quality medical care including mental health care. Ultimately if somebody wants to end their life then that's their choice. Why do I have the right to control somebody else's life?

If veterans are committing suicide due to the lack of quality mental health care and the federal govt promised to provide quality mental health care to veterans as part of their service contract then the govt is obligated to provide quality medical care. If the number of veteran suicides is indicative of their mental health care provided by the govt not meeting the standards of quality to which the veterans are entitled then that's a problem because the govt isn't fulfilling it's contractual obligations. But again, if a US citizen, veteran or not, chooses to end their own life, why does the govt or any other private citizen have the right to usurp that control over their life and tell them they can't? Whose life is it?

It's legal to terminate a pregnancy if you don't want it, why shouldn't it be legal to terminate your own life if you don't want it anymore either? It's YOUR life, if YOU want to end it I certainly don't have the right to tell you that you can't.

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


Depends on mental illness, which is something that the law in California is specifically addressing.

But I guess "I'm depressed, nobody loves me, I'm a failure, war is hell, feth life" is the same as "I'm going to die in 3 months and would like not to be in pain".

.

Should one be allowed to and not the other?

Obviously we should try and treat the mental illness if we can, but the ultimate choice should still lie with the individual.

Then again, I'm still a proponent of the Satirist Christopher Buckley's notion in Boomsday that we should offer Baby Boomers incentive to "voluntarily transition" themselves at 70.

That's a legitimate question. With "right-to-die" laws an important point is that you cannot have mental illness.

But for non-fatal diseases it is currently generally accepted that wanting to kill yourself means that you have a mental illness. So with fatal diseases you can kill yourself if you are not mentally ill, but at any other time wanting to kill yourself makes you mentally ill.

Does this make sense in the long run? Does wanting to kill yourself make you mentally ill unless we agree that the reason you want to kill yourself is a good one? Are there other legitimate reasons for wanting to kill yourself?

I honestly don't know the answer, but it would be a good discussion to have. Probably getting off-topic for this thread but we could move it to the California thread if you are interested in bouncing thoughts of each other's heads.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You think it's trivial. Other people don't. You can equate gun suicide with crime because people die unnecessarily.

No. Suicides are people CHOOSING to kill themselves. Lumping them in with the violent crime is disingenuous at best.

I do love how people that choose to commit suicide this way are viewed so differently than those choosing to commit suicide over in that other thread where it's all "good for California."

Agreed. But then you don't get to throw around the 33, 000 number like they were murdered, so you push your view, donchasee.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You think it's trivial. Other people don't. You can equate gun suicide with crime because people die unnecessarily.

And this is why I bring up alcohol in these threads. Because people talk about unnecessary death and vilify those who enjoy guns, as though their own habits are harmless, when in fact, more people die from alcohol than guns.

Relapse wrote:
Because people talk about unnecessary death and vilify those who enjoy guns, as though their own habits are harmless, when in fact, more people die from alcohol than guns.

There's actually not much of that going on in this thread.

 Janthkin wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Because people talk about unnecessary death and vilify those who enjoy guns, as though their own habits are harmless, when in fact, more people die from alcohol than guns.

There's actually not much of that going on in this thread.

It's happened in enough other threads and in the news in general, unless you miss the talk about the NRA.

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You think it's trivial. Other people don't. You can equate gun suicide with crime because people die unnecessarily.

No. Suicides are people CHOOSING to kill themselves. Lumping them in with the violent crime is disingenuous at best.

I do love how people that choose to commit suicide this way are viewed so differently than those choosing to commit suicide over in that other thread where it's all "good for California."

Depends on mental illness, which is something that the law in California is specifically addressing.

But I guess "I'm depressed, nobody loves me, I'm a failure, war is hell, feth life" is the same as "I'm going to die in 3 months and would like not to be in pain".

Is your argument above that it's okay for people to choose to kill themselves to avoid enduring physical pain but it's not okay for people who are enduring mental or emotional pain that they don't want to tolerate to commit suicide? Pain is pain. The state shouldn't force anyone to endure pain against their will, that's horrible.

Regardless of the type of pain being endured or any other reasoning behind a suicide, a person is still entitled to exert whatever amount of control over their life and death that he/she is capable of exerting. The state doesn't need to interfere with the personal choice of deteining when your life ends.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You think it's trivial. Other people don't. You can equate gun suicide with crime because people die unnecessarily.

No. Suicides are people CHOOSING to kill themselves. Lumping them in with the violent crime is disingenuous at best.

I do love how people that choose to commit suicide this way are viewed so differently than those choosing to commit suicide over in that other thread where it's all "good for California."

Depends on mental illness, which is something that the law in California is specifically addressing.

But I guess "I'm depressed, nobody loves me, I'm a failure, war is hell, feth life" is the same as "I'm going to die in 3 months and would like not to be in pain".

Is your argument above that it's okay for people to choose to kill themselves to avoid enduring physical pain but it's not okay for people who are enduring mental or emotional pain that they don't want to tolerate to commit suicide? Pain is pain. The state shouldn't force anyone to endure pain against their will, that's horrible.

Regardless of the type of pain being endured or any other reasoning behind a suicide, a person is still entitled to exert whatever amount of control over their life and death that he/she is capable of exerting. The state doesn't need to interfere with the personal choice of deteining when your life ends.

I'm gonna copy and paste this into the California thread because I think it's getting OT in here now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Wikipedia wrote:
Gun violence in the United States results in thousands of deaths and thousands more injuries annually.[1] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms (excluding BB and pellet guns) were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) [2] and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000),[3] 21,175 by suicide with a firearm,[4] 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm,[4] and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent"[5] for a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms (excluding firearm deaths due to legal intervention). 1.3% of all deaths in the country were related to firearms.[1][6]

In 2010, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 67% of all homicides in the U.S. were conducted using a firearm.[7] According to the FBI, in 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns.[8] 61% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. are suicides.[9] In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicides, and 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the U.S.[10] In 2010, 358 murders were reported involving a rifle while 6,009 were reported involving a handgun; another 1,939 were reported with an unspecified type of firearm.[11]

In 2010, gun violence cost U.S. taxpayers approximately $516 million in direct hospital costs.[12]

Of course you may well consider 33,000 deaths a year to be trivial.

Is that 33,000 from a population of 300,000,000? If so 0.011% of the population. Statistically that is about as close to trivial as you can get.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You think it's trivial. Other people don't. You can equate gun suicide with crime because people die unnecessarily.

That is an absolute non sequitur.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Please explain to the relatives of suicides why people dying from one preventable cause is different to them dying from another preventable cause.

Why can't you compare apples to oranges. They're both fruit... Prevention of suicides is heavily weighted towards mental health, education, support, etc. The prevention of crime deals with more punitive measures.
For course if you want people to prevent suffering at the hands of criminals, especially those with a weapon, having a firearm is a great form of prevention

 insaniak wrote:
Indeed. They're a conceit

Where do you think those 'inalienable rights' came from?

A bunch of people got together and said 'Hey, everyone should have these rights! All in favour?'

As I said, they're not written into the foundation of existence. They're a bunch of things that people agreed that other people should have. And so, regardless of what they are called, are subject to change when enough people decide that it is warranted.

I apologize for continuing the discussion of what constitutes a right. Typically in these threads it starts an unnecessary discussion that frequently deviates from the topic for little discernable gain.

In any event there is no appetite for gun control, or further restrictions on the right to bear arms. The public do not support it

Relapse wrote:

 Janthkin wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Because people talk about unnecessary death and vilify those who enjoy guns, as though their own habits are harmless, when in fact, more people die from alcohol than guns.

There's actually not much of that going on in this thread.

It's happened in enough other threads and in the news in general, unless you miss the talk about the NRA.

So shouldn't you be talking about that in the threads, not this one?

 d-usa wrote:
Can I tell my boss to stop worrying about those pesky veteran suicides then?

I know this was sarcasm, but no, please don't do that.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Wikipedia wrote:
Gun violence in the United States results in thousands of deaths and thousands more injuries annually.[1] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, firearms (excluding BB and pellet guns) were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) [2] and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000),[3] 21,175 by suicide with a firearm,[4] 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm,[4] and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent"[5] for a total of 33,169 deaths related to firearms (excluding firearm deaths due to legal intervention). 1.3% of all deaths in the country were related to firearms.[1][6]

In 2010, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 67% of all homicides in the U.S. were conducted using a firearm.[7] According to the FBI, in 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns.[8] 61% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. are suicides.[9] In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicides, and 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the U.S.[10] In 2010, 358 murders were reported involving a rifle while 6,009 were reported involving a handgun; another 1,939 were reported with an unspecified type of firearm.[11]

In 2010, gun violence cost U.S. taxpayers approximately $516 million in direct hospital costs.[12]

Of course you may well consider 33,000 deaths a year to be trivial.

Is that 33,000 from a population of 300,000,000? If so 0.011% of the population. Statistically that is about as close to trivial as you can get.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You think it's trivial. Other people don't. You can equate gun suicide with crime because people die unnecessarily.

That is an absolute non sequitur.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Please explain to the relatives of suicides why people dying from one preventable cause is different to them dying from another preventable cause.

Why can't you compare apples to oranges. They're both fruit... Prevention of suicides is heavily weighted towards mental health, education, support, etc. The prevention of crime deals with more punitive measures.
For course if you want people to prevent suffering at the hands of criminals, especially those with a weapon, having a firearm is a great form of prevention

 insaniak wrote:
Indeed. They're a conceit

Where do you think those 'inalienable rights' came from?

A bunch of people got together and said 'Hey, everyone should have these rights! All in favour?'

As I said, they're not written into the foundation of existence. They're a bunch of things that people agreed that other people should have. And so, regardless of what they are called, are subject to change when enough people decide that it is warranted.

I apologize for continuing the discussion of what constitutes a right. Typically in these threads it starts an unnecessary discussion that frequently deviates from the topic for little discernable gain.

In any event there is no appetite for gun control, or further restrictions on the right to bear arms. The public do not support it

if 33,000 deaths is trivial why did America go to war over 2.7k deaths during 9/11?

Why should we give any respect to soldiers who fought in said war as if they had a hard time or anything "significant" happened when only 2.3k of them died over 15 years, or 153 died a year in that terms. That's pretty trivial. Obviously it's a waste of time to support the troops who fought in wars, or do anything to try and protect them- we should definitely not waste money on any protective gear for them. As they are below trivial if 33k people are trivial. Same for cops, more kids 14 and under die a year to gun homicides than cops die in the line of duty, why are we wasting tax money on kevlar vests for those guys or bothering with legislation on the state/county/city level to make sure they are funded to do their job and be protected, its not that big a deal if only 82 of them die a year?

I don't think most people in this thread have asked to ban guns, yet people who are heavily pro gun seem to keep turning the discussion to "why jer bannin' mah gunz" Most people just thought there should be more regulation, and someone people discussed adding negligence and more severe charges if your firearm is not properly stored and is used in a crime due to its easy access to someone who is not the lawful owner.

Having a firearm has never been proven to be a form of crime prevention, or a deterrent to crime. In fact every statistic shows that by having a firearm and being involved in a crime either as offender or victim you are statistical y more likely to end up being involved in a homicide as the victim. Having a gun causes a criminal with a gun to have to escalate the situation because you are now also threatening their life directly. A significant number of homicides are caused by people the victim knows, as published in a peer reviewed paper "Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home"
American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine November/December 2011 5: 502-511, first published on February 2, 2011.

Of course we should care about preventing the deaths of our soldiers in the line of fire, and of course we should care that we domestically lose 500% more people a year to gun homicides(not even including unintentional discharge, and suicide) than we lost people in 9/11. Displacing the argument that we should do anything to regulate guns because the amount of people died because it is smaller than some other number does not mean it should be ignored. 11,000 people is considered a small sized town, so every year a small sized town worth of people somewhere in the country completely has every single man woman and child in it die from gun homicides, and of course our government can and should regulate guns more heavily- from the federal level so it binds all the states together and creates a federal registry of firearms to prevent interstate sales, regulations on gun storage and locks, etc. There is no "unalienable" right to keep any firearm you want, however you want. The federal government has always had the right to regulate which arms you are allowed to own and how they are kept, and has over the years starting back in the 1800s.

This just in... two more school shootings. Today. Six dead, by current news reports.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Please explain to the relatives of suicides why people dying from one preventable cause is different to them dying from another preventable cause.

Take your own advice. Lumping gun suicides in with gun murders is just terrible logic.

If someone is distressed enough to take their own life they'll find a way. If they don't have a gun they'll jump off a bridge, slit their wrists, run into traffic, pop a couple hundred pills, etc... And I really doubt their relatives will really care about the method in which they took their own life.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Please explain to the relatives of suicides why people dying from one preventable cause is different to them dying from another preventable cause.

Take your own advice. Lumping gun suicides in with gun murders is just terrible logic.

If someone is distressed enough to take their own life they'll find a way. If they don't have a gun they'll jump off a bridge, slit their wrists, run into traffic, pop a couple hundred pills, etc... And I really doubt their relatives will really care about the method in which they took their own life.

Actually, suicide is one of those pesky things where a simple deterrent does often make a difference. Putting up barriers or safety nets on bridges takes an "easy" suicide and has a positive effect on reducing suicide rates. Often a simple "I guess I can't do that" can be the difference between suicide and survival, especially if it is a very spontaneous decision.

Of course the whole "if they really want to do it, they will find a way to do it" is the same overused and pointless trope for suicide as it is for homicide. You can also protect yourself without a gun and protect your home without a gun and you can also overthrow a tyrannical government without a gun. all as long as you really want to. But we all know that having a gun makes all those things easier, which is why many of us carry a gun.

I'm not saying that we should get rid of all guns because it will prevent all suicides. I'm not even arguing for any sort of changes to gun laws at all in this thread. But a stupid argument is a stupid argument and it shouldn't be allowed to be repeated every single time in every single thread. Pretending that a gun doesn't make these things easier is either lazy thinking or intellectual dishonesty.

But is a gun easier than jumping off a bridge or walking out into traffic? 2 things that are pretty hard to make suicide proof. Not even close to every bridge has nets and not really much of anything prevents you from walking onto a freeway.

 d-usa wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Please explain to the relatives of suicides why people dying from one preventable cause is different to them dying from another preventable cause.

Take your own advice. Lumping gun suicides in with gun murders is just terrible logic.

If someone is distressed enough to take their own life they'll find a way. If they don't have a gun they'll jump off a bridge, slit their wrists, run into traffic, pop a couple hundred pills, etc... And I really doubt their relatives will really care about the method in which they took their own life.

Actually, suicide is one of those pesky things where a simple deterrent does often make a difference. Putting up barriers or safety nets on bridges takes an "easy" suicide and has a positive effect on reducing suicide rates. Often a simple "I guess I can't do that" can be the difference between suicide and survival, especially if it is a very spontaneous decision.

Of course the whole "if they really want to do it, they will find a way to do it" is the same overused and pointless trope for suicide as it is for homicide. You can also protect yourself without a gun and protect your home without a gun and you can also overthrow a tyrannical government without a gun. all as long as you really want to. But we all know that having a gun makes all those things easier, which is why many of us carry a gun.

I'm not saying that we should get rid of all guns because it will prevent all suicides. I'm not even arguing for any sort of changes to gun laws at all in this thread. But a stupid argument is a stupid argument and it shouldn't be allowed to be repeated every single time in every single thread. Pretending that a gun doesn't make these things easier is either lazy thinking or intellectual dishonesty.

So if a person decides to commit suicide the state should thwart the attempt because the state has a greater right to a person's life than the person him/herself? So people don't have the right to choose their own death? The state doesn't own your life and the state doesn't have the right to stop you from choosing your own time of death.

I will throw this in here, though, because I like where I think d is heading. Think about a , ""heat of passion" killing. If the person has time to think about what they're doing, they usually wouldn't have killed someone. Could the same not be true for someone who says, "Aw, feth it.", and put a gun to their head, who, being forced to take another minute to think, would instead say, "Aw feth, that's crazy"?

Relapse wrote:
I will throw this in here, though, because I like where I think d is heading. Think about a , ""heat of passion" killing. If the person has time to think about what they're doing, they usually wouldn't have killed someone. Could the same not be true for someone who says, "Aw, feth it.", and put a gun to their head, who, being forced to take another minute to think, would instead say, "Aw feth, that's crazy"?

How does the state force a suicidal person to pause to reconsider his/ her actions and why does the state have the right to interfere?

I do think the suicide talk would be better served in the suicide thread.

(not trying to mod here, but it probably is a bit off-topic. I do think it's good to talk about so I don't mind keeping the discussion going, just trying to keep both the discussion and this thread going. )

Agreed

blaktoof wrote:


if 33,000 deaths is trivial why did America go to war over 2.7k deaths during 9/11?

Why should we give any respect to soldiers who fought in said war as if they had a hard time or anything "significant" happened when only 2.3k of them died over 15 years, or 153 died a year in that terms. That's pretty trivial. Obviously it's a waste of time to support the troops who fought in wars, or do anything to try and protect them- we should definitely not waste money on any protective gear for them. As they are below trivial if 33k people are trivial. Same for cops, more kids 14 and under die a year to gun homicides than cops die in the line of duty, why are we wasting tax money on kevlar vests for those guys or bothering with legislation on the state/county/city level to make sure they are funded to do their job and be protected, its not that big a deal if only 82 of them die a year?

I don't think most people in this thread have asked to ban guns, yet people who are heavily pro gun seem to keep turning the discussion to "why jer bannin' mah gunz" Most people just thought there should be more regulation, and someone people discussed adding negligence and more severe charges if your firearm is not properly stored and is used in a crime due to its easy access to someone who is not the lawful owner.

Having a firearm has never been proven to be a form of crime prevention, or a deterrent to crime. In fact every statistic shows that by having a firearm and being involved in a crime either as offender or victim you are statistical y more likely to end up being involved in a homicide as the victim. Having a gun causes a criminal with a gun to have to escalate the situation because you are now also threatening their life directly. A significant number of homicides are caused by people the victim knows, as published in a peer reviewed paper "Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home"
American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine November/December 2011 5: 502-511, first published on February 2, 2011.

Of course we should care about preventing the deaths of our soldiers in the line of fire, and of course we should care that we domestically lose 500% more people a year to gun homicides(not even including unintentional discharge, and suicide) than we lost people in 9/11. Displacing the argument that we should do anything to regulate guns because the amount of people died because it is smaller than some other number does not mean it should be ignored. 11,000 people is considered a small sized town, so every year a small sized town worth of people somewhere in the country completely has every single man woman and child in it die from gun homicides, and of course our government can and should regulate guns more heavily- from the federal level so it binds all the states together and creates a federal registry of firearms to prevent interstate sales, regulations on gun storage and locks, etc. There is no "unalienable" right to keep any firearm you want, however you want. The federal government has always had the right to regulate which arms you are allowed to own and how they are kept, and has over the years starting back in the 1800s.

If you want to know why we went to war after 9/11 you would have to ask Congress they were the ones that declared it. I think it had something to do with an organization of foreign nationals launching an organized attack on US soil against US citizens. If you're claiming that we had to declare war because the death toll had reached some sort of magic number that is a claim easily dismissed. History has shown that the US govt will go to war under much less bloody circumstances, see the Maine, the Lusitania and the Gulf of Tonkin.

33,000 deaths annually in the US isn't a major problem regardless of the cause. In order to classify the number of gun deaths as a major problem we have to define what a major problem is and that requires context. You can't define gun deaths as a major national problem and also claim that the number of gun deaths can't be placed within the context of the US population as a whole. 33,000 deaths in a vacuum cannot be a major problem, it has to have context and in the national context it doesn't measure up as a major problem.

I'm not sure why you seem to think that gun crimes aren't taken seriously in the US because we value our right to keep and bear arms. Gun crimes have been criminalized on the federal and state level with harsh penalties and they are prosecuted agressively. Draconian unconstitutional infringement on gun rights that have no bearing on stopping mass shootings won't mean we as a country suddenly care more its a punitive measure whose purpose is to assuage emotional reactions to tragedies.

The 2nd amendment isn't about crime prevention. Rights don't have to be justified to be exercised. Whether or not my firearms stop crimes has no bearing on my right to have them. None of our rights in the bill of rights require justifications.

The courts, both state and SCOTUS have repeatedly affirmed that the 2nd amendment protects the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms. That is a verifiable fact. The measures you want to enact to infringe on the 2A wouldn't stop gun violence and they would openly conflict with constitutional protections of the 2A. A national gun registry doesn't stop people with clean records from purchasing guns and then committing crimes with them. It also doesn't stop people from murdering relatives and stealing their guns to use to commit murder. What interstate gun sales would you prevent? Pretty much all guns sold weren't manufactured in the state they are purchased so stopping interstate sales means banning the purchase of firearms, which is unconstitutional. How a federal registry would even affect interstate sales let alone prevent them is beyond me, perhaps you could explain why you think that would happen. The federal govt doesn't have jurisdiction to pass laws dictating gun storage requirements. There are no federal gun storage laws currently for that very reason. The federal govt has regulated the purchase of guns because such purchases are interstate commerce and therefore are subject to federal regulation. That is also an established verifiable fact that no one has argued against.

The sale of guns is not a Constitutionally-protected right, only the keeping and bearing of them.

Just tossing that out there.

 Psienesis wrote:
The sale of guns is not a Constitutionally-protected right, only the keeping and bearing of them.

Just tossing that out there.

I can easily argue that preventing people from selling and thus acquiring weapons is a violation of the 2nd amendment. You are infringing on their right to own guns by making it more difficult/impossible to purchase them.

 Psienesis wrote:
This just in... two more school shootings. Today. Six dead, by current news reports.

Don't leave it purely snarky, motyak

At this point in a gun thread we can do without purely snarky responses, thanks

 Grey Templar wrote:
I can easily argue that preventing people from selling and thus acquiring weapons is a violation of the 2nd amendment. You are infringing on their right to own guns by making it more difficult/impossible to purchase them.

Exactly. The courts in the US are generally not amused by attempts to make exercising constitutional rights so difficult that most people can't do it while hiding behind the technicality of "we didn't actually say you can't".

 Grey Templar wrote:

I can easily argue that preventing people from selling and thus acquiring weapons is a violation of the 2nd amendment. You are infringing on their right to own guns by making it more difficult/impossible to purchase them.

Huh. So how far away can the nearest gun store be, before your constitutional rights are being infringed upon? Do people living in remote areas have a potential lawsuit open?

 insaniak wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

I can easily argue that preventing people from selling and thus acquiring weapons is a violation of the 2nd amendment. You are infringing on their right to own guns by making it more difficult/impossible to purchase them.

Huh. So how far away can the nearest gun store be, before your constitutional rights are being infringed upon? Do people living in remote areas have a potential lawsuit open?

There is a "they shut down all but one gun-store in my state" joke there. Together with a "people should have to watch videos of kids getting shot in the head to make them understand the danger before they can buy guns", "everybody should have to fill out a form and then come back the next day to actually pick up the gun", "they should have to talk to a counselor before being able to buy the gun", and a "there should be protesters calling them murderers and gun-nuts in front of every store" joke.

 insaniak wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

I can easily argue that preventing people from selling and thus acquiring weapons is a violation of the 2nd amendment. You are infringing on their right to own guns by making it more difficult/impossible to purchase them.

Huh. So how far away can the nearest gun store be, before your constitutional rights are being infringed upon? Do people living in remote areas have a potential lawsuit open?

Thanks to the internet, a physical store is unnecessary.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You think it's trivial. Other people don't. You can equate gun suicide with crime because people die unnecessarily.

Who has ownership over your life other than you, yourself? If your life is your own and you choose to end it why should the govt act to take that choice away from you? How exactly is the govt supposed to physically stop people from choosing to commit suicide? Do we all get a govt minder that follows us around constant ready to intercede at a moments notice and save us from ourselves? It's unfortunate for the loved ones of people who commit suicide but it's nobody else's fault other than the suicidal person himself/herself. That was a choice freely made. Stopping people from exercising their freedom of choice isn't a matter of gun control, it's literally people control and the govt doesn't have the ability or the right to do that.

God, of course, if you are a Christian.

But leaving that to one side, suicide is rarely a free choice, because it is done under conditions of mental stress that amount to temporary insanity.