- Messages
- 835
- Reactions
- 1,305
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I will sell all of my ARs to Uncle Sam for ten grand each. Then use the money to build my dream guns!
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.
Nope. To stop living is an inalienable right. My life, my tools, my choice.Getting a gun out of a suicidal person's hands is a worthwhile problem to solve.
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.Nope. To stop living is an inalienable right. My life, my tools, my choice.
Don't red flag me bro.
Good eye! Which is why they now disingenuously call it 'gun safety.' They figured out we were onto them.Because gun control isn't about saving lives….. it's about…. Control.
Suicide is tragic. But you don't prevent one by disarming me.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.
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?Suicide is tragic. But you don't prevent one by disarming me.
Suicide is tragic. But you don't prevent one by disarming me.
"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?
Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.
Not very excellent of you. I am not the topic here. Please stick to the topic. Thank you.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?
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.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!
Let me break this down for you:Not very excellent of you. I am not the topic here. Please stick to the topic. Thank you.
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.Let me break this down for you:
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."
- 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."
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.