Hilarious.It would accurate reflect usage would it not?
No you didn’t .
Well except for treatment preventing or stopping the suicidal ideation. Yeah. A reasonable person would believe that.
no reasonable person would believe that taking firearms away from a person who is not suicidal is going to protect the man in the next county who is suicidal.
Sure. Just like a reasonable person would think riding a bicycle is a risk for a bike accident.
Nope. I just don’t follow your twisted , illogical thinking.
Gun banners gotta lie don’t you.
Okay. As a result of war /combat?
Review this discussion and concentrate on post 441.
Firearm are a risk factor for completion of a suicide attempt. Reducing access reduces suicide. Now, you will not agree and you will be wrong.
Highly unlikely.
Done.
Yep if a person is a suicide completer.
Of course. S. Korea has reduced access to firearms and has one of the highest suicide rates in. Your contention is blatantly false.
No it’s not. You just have zero experience or understanding of firearms and firearm owners.
I did address it honestly . I have certainly given loaded firearms to children.
I gave you an honest answer. You just didn’t like it because your bias against gun owners never ever conceived of the idea that millions of children each year go out into the woods with loaded guns and hunt.
No it isn’t. .
No it doesn’t. Firearms have no relevance to suicide rates. Japan has no private ownership of firearms but higher suicide rate than we do.
No they aren’t.
Again, we need to distinguish WHAT the seller is knowing. If you sell to 1000 people and you know, on average, it is likely one of them will commit suicide, that is different from selling to one person who you know is highly likely to commit suicide. Even though the "expected number" (in statistics terms) of suicides would be the same in those two scenarios, the merchant who sells a thousand legal guns has left a trail of (stereotypically) father-son outings in the woods, where a child learned to be studiously careful and responsible with potentially deadly force in pursuit of an economically and culturally valuable goal.
Prosecutors all over the country are looking at 3D printer scenarios.
An attractive nuisance implies that a child is walking down the street - without trespassing - and sees something that tempts him to go in. It is, nonetheless, a concept that seems prone to be taken too far. If the child decides to murder someone you blame the person who had a gun that could be stolen -- if the little angel instead decides to rape a classmate, do you call her an "attractive nuisance" and blame her for being too tempting?
The scenario of rebelling against a sitting government is difficult, but not impossible. However, as we see today, and as has happened many times before in history, before a totalitarian group deposes a democratic government and takes over, first it exists as a paramilitary group which relies on fear and crime to cow the population into silence. The Brownshirts (Sturmabteilung) were attacking people in Germany during the Weimar Republic, for example. The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to act as a militia in the patriotic defense of democracy before it falls.
Once again, YOUR behavior in exceptional circumstances is not the issue (however thoughtless and misinformed it may be). The issue is social and political policy on the management of firearms and basic considerations of public health and safety.
The above post was interrupted by the site maintenance. Should be:
Alcohol sales to the drunk is obvious. Your obfuscation is obvious as well. Firearm sellers should have liability responsibility similar to tavern owners.
Why is it so hard for gun apologists to recognize that guns should be secured from access to children. The pool analogy applies.
Jews were tormented in Germany because there was wide-spread availability of firearms. Civilian firearms are more often used for intimidation or vigilantism than for "freedom fighting". How did the Civil War turn out? How about Shays Rebellion? how did John Brown do? do you approve of John Wilkes Booth's defense of the Confederacy? what about the Days of Rage in the 70's? All these events were driven by self-right freedom fighters.
If you can't accurately summarize the source material, it isn't an ad hominem attack. It's a reading comprehension issues.
This is also an ad hominem but don't stop discredit your position more please.
As foolish a conclusion as I've heard. Does a hammer build a house?
Any accurate and rational criticism of the posts of a gun apologist is typically considered by them to be ad hominem.
Tavern owners don't have to do a background check on their customers! They can't sell to you if you're obviously falling down drunk ... just as a gun shop owner isn't going to sell to a guy who talks about who he wants to shoot.
If the state is going to intrude onto your property and blame you because an uninvited trespasser could steal a gun, we know where that goes. If you're one of those people who idles their car in the winter and someone gets in and takes it to rob a bank, do they come after you the same way? Do people have to be afraid to leave the keys in the lawnmower because a kid might flip it in a 'joy ride', or worry about being blamed for underage drinking because they don't have a lock on their liquor cabinets?
Without exception, that is what anti gun people do. There are half a billion guns in the U.S. that have caused no trouble at all!
Look up Law on the Disarmament of the People (1920), which was enforced more harshly after the Beer Hall Putsch. How did that turn out for them?
Ummm, I think we won? Thanks to state militias from the North with many brave boys who grew up shooting game from the time they were knee high to a high knee.
John Brown's body lies a-moulderin' in the grave ... his truth keeps marching on. Now that was an ugly and imperfect series of historical events, but a key point was that Brown was taking weapons from the government anyway! Are you going to disarm the Army?
That was a nation-state level assassination, possibly resulting from the failure to hang Jeff Davis from a sour apple tree. You're not going to disarm foreign spies in the U.S. either!
That was some kids smashing windows. No guns necessary to get panties in a knot, not then and not in L.A. now.
My behavio is not exceptional at all. Cripes that’s just shooting sporting clays . You know how many rounds of. 22 a family can use up in just a couple of hours of shooting.?
Sure. And the social and political policy of taking a firearm from someone not suicidal in the name of preventing the self harm of a fellow in the next county who is suicidal and plans to hang himself is the height of stupidity.
There already is a current rational public policy that endorses the adult level access to firearms to children .
gothunts.com
Tavern owners don't do blood alcohol testing either. The firearm transaction that is suspicious should be stopped and, yet, extremely disturbed people are able to buy firearms. However, NRA and other pro-gun groups have implemented protections against liability throughout the gun industry.
Simple Tort law.
So that would be another extreme generalization that can be shown to be inaccurate.
Learn about the fantasy that civilian firearms are to "resist tyranny". In fact, civilian firearms more frequently perpetuate vigilantism and lynching and intimidation.
The Civil War is called the War of Northern Aggression by many in the South. The South viewed their actions as those of burdened by the over-reach of the North.
The issue, that you brought up, was civilian weapons to resist tyranny (as perceived by those opposed to the government).
It was an act of a group determined to resist tyranny.
Wrong. That was bombings and acts of rebellion such as bank robberies and assassinations at one point weekly. Learn about history.
So that would be another extreme generalization that can be shown to be inaccurate.
Learn about the fantasy that civilian firearms are to "resist tyranny". In fact, civilian firearms more frequently perpetuate vigilantism and lynching and intimidation.
Militia Myths: Why Armed Populations Don’t Prevent Tyranny, But Often Lead To It
www.armedwithreason.com
The Civil War is called the War of Northern Aggression by many in the South. The South viewed their actions as those of burdened by the over-reach of the North.
Once again, rebellion produced huge and preventable losses.
The issue, that you brought up, was civilian weapons to resist tyranny (as perceived by those opposed to the government).
It was an act of a group determined to resist tyranny.
Wrong. That was bombings and acts of rebellion such as bank robberies and assassinations at one point weekly. Learn about history.
If you suck at basic English composition, sure.
No
The tool is used. A tool is incapable of any action.
Meaningless tautology.