another idiots take on gun control

[jim97701]

Yeah I'm sure this will work, I'm sure all the gang bangers will participate.

MSN

www.msn.com

Read More

 

[Jason999]

Yup, all them gangsters will be turning in their stolen guns for a Red Lobster or Amazon gift card.

I'll gladly show up bright & early to a local gun buy back, they can buy my custom, hand built, "Sig-Sour" pistol.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Yeah I'm sure this will work, I'm sure all the gang bangers will participate.

MSN

www.msn.com

I will sell all of my ARs to Uncle Sam for ten grand each. Then use the money to build my dream guns!

 

[hawmanai]

With that reasoning outlawing Murder would stop gun violence..

 

[Hueco]

The article is right on one thing: the overwhelming majority of people who fail in their attempt to commit suicide do not go on to try again and the majority of attempts by way of gun are lethal.

Getting a gun out of a suicidal person's hands is a worthwhile problem to solve.

But, I'm failing to see why they think the Gov offering a penny for a quarter will entice those suicidal folks. At best, it's wishful thinking. At worst, it's a goddamn delusion that robs us of manpower, time, and resources that could be better spent actually saving a life or three.

 

[Stomper]

The article is right on one thing: the overwhelming majority of people who fail in their attempt to commit suicide do not go on to try again and the majority of attempts by way of gun are lethal.

Getting a gun out of a suicidal person's hands is a worthwhile problem to solve.

But, I'm failing to see why they think the Gov offering a penny for a quarter will entice those suicidal folks. At best, it's wishful thinking. At worst, it's a goddamn delusion that robs us of manpower, time, and resources that could be better spent actually saving a life or three.

Because gun control isn't about saving lives….. it's about…. Control.

 

[LDmax]

Getting a gun out of a suicidal person's hands is a worthwhile problem to solve.

Nope. To stop living is an inalienable right. My life, my tools, my choice.

Don't red flag me bro.

 

[Hueco]

Nope. To stop living is an inalienable right. My life, my tools, my choice.

Don't red flag me bro.

Spoken like a guy who has never experienced depression, suicidal ideations, or conversely - come home to find someone you love dead in bed from their own actions.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Because gun control isn't about saving lives….. it's about…. Control.

Good eye! Which is why they now disingenuously call it 'gun safety.' They figured out we were onto them.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

The article is right on one thing: the overwhelming majority of people who fail in their attempt to commit suicide do not go on to try again and the majority of attempts by way of gun are lethal.

Getting a gun out of a suicidal person's hands is a worthwhile problem to solve.

But, I'm failing to see why they think the Gov offering a penny for a quarter will entice those suicidal folks. At best, it's wishful thinking. At worst, it's a goddamn delusion that robs us of manpower, time, and resources that could be better spent actually saving a life or three.

Suicide is tragic. But you don't prevent one by disarming me.

 

[Hueco]

Suicide is tragic. But you don't prevent one by disarming me.

Your name never came up. The world doesn't revolve around hyper sensitive gun owners. Seriously - look back at this thread, the OP, the article...who mentioned red flag laws? Who mentioned disarming you?

 

[Stomper]

Suicide is tragic. But you don't prevent one by disarming me.

Yeah, you can still hold the muzzle of a long gun in your your mouth then use your feet and pull the trigger with your big toe!

 

[Mikej]

"Idea from Beto O'Rourke" That's as far as I got.

These people that make the decisions and draft laws in this country really should educate themselves. What's that saying?...
"There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know"
John Heywood 1546

I'm not sure they already know, their laws and restriction on honest law abiding people don't solve the problem though?

 

[Stomper]

"Idea from Beto O'Rourke" That's as far as I got.

These people that make the decisions a draft laws in this country really should educate themselves. What's that saying?...
"There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know"
John Heywood 1546

I'm not sure they already know, their laws and restriction on honest law abiding people don't solve the problem though?

Their folly can be distilled thusly…..

Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

 

[Idaho44]

Having lived in country that had strict 'gun control', those on the darker side of society had no problem obtaining a gun and had no intention of 'giving' them up! So this "person" writing this article should really do more than drink the 'cool aid' of "fantasy seekers of Nirvana" who can't and won't deal with the realities of the world. There really are 'evil people' out there!

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Your name never came up. The world doesn't revolve around hyper sensitive gun owners. Seriously - look back at this thread, the OP, the article...who mentioned red flag laws? Who mentioned disarming you?

Not very excellent of you. I am not the topic here. Please stick to the topic. Thank you.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Yeah, you can still hold the muzzle of a long gun in your your mouth then use your feet and pull the trigger with your big toe!

My guns will never be used in a suicide. Or a homicide for that matter. The only things in danger from my firearms are paper, steel, beer cans, and wine bottles. The occasional refrigerator.

 

[Hueco]

Not very excellent of you. I am not the topic here. Please stick to the topic. Thank you.

Let me break this down for you:

• OP Posts link to article
  • Article topic: Voluntary Buy Backs as a means to curb gun suicide
• I post response
  • TLDR; Solving for suicide good. Gun buybacks bad.
• You respond to me
  • "Suicide is tragic. But you don't prevent one by disarming me."

Had you meant to respond to the ether, or "the left," or the article author...then the appropriate word to use in your single sentence would be "they" as in: "But they don't prevent one by disarming me."

By quoting me and directing your comment to me (using "you"), you opened the door to a tangent that is all about you. And, like I said - no one in this thread or the OP is talking about disarming you...so your response seems, well, a little touchy.

I suppose I should be advising you to stay on topic (gun buy backs, firearm suicide | not you, your disarmament)...but, I believe in threads ebbing and flowing and you're free to make it about you if you so choose and it doesn't bother OP.

 

[revjen45]

1) "Spoken like a guy who has never experienced depression, suicidal ideations, or conversely - come home to find someone you love dead in bed from their own actions."
Some years back I experienced depression and suicidal ideations, but I wasn't stupid enough to tell anybody or carry it out. My doc suggested a medication that completely remedied the situation. Note that the same med is used for chronic pain, which was also part of the equation.

2) "Yeah, you can still hold the muzzle of a long gun in your your mouth then use your feet and pull the trigger with your big toe!"
Or you can cut the bbl down. If you're going to off yourself the penalty for using a SBR/SBS won't make any difference.

3) South Korea is a civilized country with a decent standard of living, and gun laws requiring storage at Polizei Obergruppenamt if you can own one at all. Their suicide rate is 28.5/100,000 vs. 13.9/100,000 for the U.S.
In Japan, suicide borders on a crisis level, though the government has been active in intervention to decrease the risk of suicide among vulnerable populations. It is the leading cause of death in men between the ages of 20-44 and women between the ages of 15 to 34. As we all know Japan has gun laws that American gun grabbers can only wish for.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Let me break this down for you:

• OP Posts link to article
  • Article topic: Voluntary Buy Backs as a means to curb gun suicide
• I post response
  • TLDR; Solving for suicide good. Gun buybacks bad.
• You respond to me
  • "Suicide is tragic. But you don't prevent one by disarming me."

Had you meant to respond to the ether, or "the left," or the article author...then the appropriate word to use in your single sentence would be "they" as in: "But they don't prevent one by disarming me."

By quoting me and directing your comment to me (using "you"), you opened the door to a tangent that is all about you. And, like I said - no one in this thread or the OP is talking about disarming you...so your response seems, well, a little touchy.

I suppose I should be advising you to stay on topic (gun buy backs, firearm suicide | not you, your disarmament)...but, I believe in threads ebbing and flowing and you're free to make it about you if you so choose and it doesn't bother OP.

Google: ubiquitous. "You" is not actually referencing you -- a poster on this forum -- rather, "they" and "us." This is a colloquial convention of standard American English that should not have to be explained to anyone -- except perhaps the most pedantic onlooker. "Me" is not me, but also "us," "we." See above. The context of this discussion should have made that abundantly clear. My error was in assuming same. Your logical error -- argumentum ad hominem -- occurred when you implied that I was both the topic of this thread and a 'hypersensitive gun owner.' Instead of a sematical dialectic however, I'd rather focus on the topic: You are right when you suggest a gun buyback will likely have little effect on suicide. What you failed to note is that suicide statistics should never be included in "gun violence" statistics as it is a typical, disingenuous -- and frankly cynical -- tactic deployed by the gun grabbers to pad their numbers in a pallid attempt to bludgeon sycophants with another logical fallacy: argumentum ad passiones. When people have to fudge their numbers to make their argument, it's a pretty good indication that even they themselves have little confidence in the veracity of their stated position and that it is one easily defeated by rational people arguing in good faith.