• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why is the average firearm owner, an unsafe gun owner?

You don't care about suicide prevention

You argue it's better to institute a mass, nationwide mental health care program to reduce suicides over the banni ng of firearms

You literally support ANY batshit crazy project over giving up you guns - if indeed you have any - which I stongly suspect you don't.
Rich. You have to be kidding me?
You think that trying to institute a nationwide ban on guns in the us . To reduce suicide. ( when people with suicidal intent would simply switch to other as deadly means” ) make sense.

Meanwhile instituting a national emphasis on improving mental health access. Increasing mental health insurance in Medicaid , require it in private insurance . And boosting the access to mental health in schools, increasing the number of inpatient treatment facilities etc.

Something that could be done with state block grants etc and would reduce the number of suicides REGARDLESS OF METHOD?

You think that’s “ bat crap crazy”.

This is why you have no credibility .
 
You don't care about suicide prevention
Do you?


What is wrong with doctor assisted suicides ?

You argue it's better to institute a mass, nationwide mental health care program to reduce suicides over the banni ng of firearms

You literally support ANY batshit crazy project over giving up you guns - if indeed you have any - which I stongly suspect you don't.
 
That is because @Rich2018 doesn't really care about the people who commit suicide. All he cares about is infringing on the rights of US citizens so we can be slaves to our government (like Brits).

I think all he cares about is being contrary for its own sake, at this point.
 
I think all he cares about is being contrary for its own sake, at this point.

I care about it, but not at the expense of denying other people firearms for self-defense/family protection or supporting the original intent of the 2A. Not at the expense of taking away their choice, based on their risks and circumstances. Not at the expense of their lives. These are personal/family decisions and responsibilities. And their consequences...positive and negative.
 
Last edited:
Yes
One of the (many) reasons I support a gun ban (with caveats as previously discussed multiple times).

Yeah, your idea that it's better if someone commits suicide with a P-08 Luger than with a CZ 75.
 
Which suicide ?
The doctor assisted ones you were talking about here:

 
The doctor assisted ones you were talking about here:


Those generally are as they're (generally) done with the consent of the patient who cannot stand living any longer.
 
Those generally are as they're (generally) done with the consent of the patient who cannot stand living any longer.
As opposed to any other suicide? If someone kills himself, does he not consent (implicitly by virtue of pulling the trigger)? Is he not implying he cannot stand to live any longer? The only difference is there's no paper trail (unless he leaves a note), because it's one person doing it to himself.
 
As opposed to any other suicide? If someone kills himself, does he not consent (implicitly by virtue of pulling the trigger)? Is he not implying he cannot stand to live any longer? The only difference is there's no paper trail (unless he leaves a note), because it's one person doing it to himself.

When a doctor assists in a legal and voluntary euthanasia (where such a practice is legal), it is only every done after lengthy and exhaustive psychological testing and counselling
This is designed to ensure that the person wishing to die, is of sound mind and genuinely wishes to end their life.

Contrast this with the vast bulk of suicide attempts, where sadly those attempting suicide receive no medical support and in many cases are just the victims of (temporary) mental illness, like severe depression.
This is highlighted by the fact that many people who survive a suicide attempt are overjoyed to have done so and never make a subsequent attempt.

So no, the person attempting suicide on their own, is NOT implying they cannot stand to live any longer. They are, instead, frequently just the victim of temporary mental illness
And anyone suggesting otherwise is quite wrong.
 
When a doctor assists in a legal and voluntary euthanasia (where such a practice is legal), it is only every done after lengthy and exhaustive psychological testing and counselling
This is designed to ensure that the person wishing to die, is of sound mind and genuinely wishes to end their life.

Contrast this with the vast bulk of suicide attempts, where sadly those attempting suicide receive no medical support and in many cases are just the victims of (temporary) mental illness, like severe depression.
This is highlighted by the fact that many people who survive a suicide attempt are overjoyed to have done so and never make a subsequent attempt.

So no, the person attempting suicide on their own, is NOT implying they cannot stand to live any longer. They are, instead, frequently just the victim of temporary mental illness
And anyone suggesting otherwise is quite wrong.

The Medical Industry must get their final measure of cash.
 
Incorrect, as explained above.

You explained that assisted suicide doesn't include the consent of the suicidal person?! That's rather startling.
 
I think the attempt to medicalize this is an attempt to make appeals to authority

The subtext is that the state will decide if you can legitimately end your life or not.

Costs about 5000 bucks in California.
 
When a doctor assists in a legal and voluntary euthanasia (where such a practice is legal), it is only every done after lengthy and exhaustive psychological testing and counselling
This is designed to ensure that the person wishing to die, is of sound mind and genuinely wishes to end their life.

Contrast this with the vast bulk of suicide attempts, where sadly those attempting suicide receive no medical support and in many cases are just the victims of (temporary) mental illness, like severe depression.
This is highlighted by the fact that many people who survive a suicide attempt are overjoyed to have done so and never make a subsequent attempt.

So no, the person attempting suicide on their own, is NOT implying they cannot stand to live any longer. They are, instead, frequently just the victim of temporary mental illness
And anyone suggesting otherwise is quite wrong.
Buyer's remorse doesn't mean you didn't want the item. It means you don't want it any longer.
 
Rich. You have to be kidding me?
You think that trying to institute a nationwide ban on guns in the us . To reduce suicide. ( when people with suicidal intent would simply switch to other as deadly means” ) make sense.

Meanwhile instituting a national emphasis on improving mental health access. Increasing mental health insurance in Medicaid , require it in private insurance . And boosting the access to mental health in schools, increasing the number of inpatient treatment facilities etc.

Something that could be done with state block grants etc and would reduce the number of suicides REGARDLESS OF METHOD?

You think that’s “ bat crap crazy”.

This is why you have no credibility .


You think that the gun control debate is chiefly motivated by a desire to reduce suicides ????


That is what is called a "straw-man" argument
Where you deliberately misrepresent someone's argument so as to ridicule it and hence more easily defeat it

It is a quite contemptible way of arguing.
 
You think that the gun control debate is chiefly motivated by a desire to reduce suicides ????

Why wouldn't it be, since that constitutes the majority of "gun deaths"?

That is what is called a "straw-man" argument
Where you deliberately misrepresent someone's argument so as to ridicule it and hence more easily defeat it

It is a quite contemptible way of arguing.

You were talking about suicides. What's wrong? Find yourself thoroughly refuted?
 
Back
Top Bottom