CDZ Gun Fatalities: Public Safety or Mental Health Issue?

[westwall]

Suicide prevention is the least emphasized aspect of gun violence prevention, but it's impossible to commit to bringing down gun violence statistics without addressing the problem of suicide.

I find it hard to understand how anyone can object to studying the problem of gun suicide rates. Too often these victims are vets, and the debt we owe them requires that we take the issue seriously.

The CDC is prevented from tackling this issue because the gun industry fears that they will recommend a reduction in our gun intake. A gunectomy. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. No one was that thrilled with their preliminary study, which had surprises for everyone.

Because we know the gun suicide rate. We also know that it doesn't matter. Japan, Korea, and the Scandinavian countries all have much higher rates of suicide than the US, they also have very strict gun control. Thus we know that gun control laws would have zero affect on the problem. Suicide prevention is laudable but it IS a mental health issue, not a gun related issue.

Who is we? Mental health professionals? Suicide prevention experts?

Anybody with a brain.

 

[westwall]

Which is exactly why they ARE threatened AND why people who believe in those rights MUST stand up for them.

Because they are unimportant?

No, because there are people such as yourself that view them as such. That is how rights vanish.

That doesn't make guns important, though. They're not. All this "bulwark against tyranny" nonsense shows how desperate gun extremists are in the defense of this right. They try to make guns out to be something they're not, in order to justify their fanaticism. They block the CDC because they believe that the CDC is part of a giant conspiracy to take away their guns. That's absurd. No one would give a thought to guns if 30,000 people a year weren't being killed by them.

They're going to be registering drones. A reasonable safety precaution, it seems to me. Why no outcry? The government has drones. If we're going to be fighting tyranny, don't we need exactly what the government has? Otherwise, what's the big deal? Home defense? What do you need for that? Fully automatic weapons? Claymore mines?

Much ado about nothing.

That is all your opinion and nothing more.

It does not display their desperation at all either. it does display that they believe the right should be protected. A belief that is supported resoundingly by the constitution. As has been said before, there is a clear avenue for those that believe like you do - write an amendment to the constitution and get it passed. Then there will not be any worry about protecting the second amendment because it would not exist. As it stands right now, the right to bear arms is no more or less important than the right of free speech or the right to vote - all enshrined in the constitution as protected rights.

Just because you may not like or disagree with a particular right does not diminish the right itself. There are plenty of people that don't support other rights such as freedom of religion or the establishment clause and even operate under the same guise of 'protecting' people in calling for its abolishment yet they too are rebuffed as it is not so simple to remove a right that has been granted protections under the constitution. Nor should it be.

Repeal the second amendment? What for? I have no more interest in doing that than I have in taking away your toaster oven rights.

No, you're 100% wrong. Gun rights are in no way as important as free speech or the right to vote. Guns were important in the late 1700's. It is 2016, and they no longer are important. If you believe that guns have exactly the same place in our society as they did in 1791, please explain why.

BTW, is your opinion not just your opinion?

Sure they are. Without the guns all the rest of the Rights would disappear in short order.

 

[320 Years of History]

Sure they are. Without the guns all the rest of the Rights would disappear in short order.

Get out your skis!!!

It is winter time in the Northern Hemisphere.​

 

[westwall]

Sure they are. Without the guns all the rest of the Rights would disappear in short order.

Get out your skis!!!

It is winter time in the Northern Hemisphere.​

Fortunately the Founders were much smarter than those who would rule us...

 

[Kalki]

Read 'The Second Amendment Primer' by Les Adams. It is filled with the American founder's quotes and views on guns and why the right to self-defense is considered necessary. Then, read Blackstone's 'Commentaries on the Laws of England', in particular the section on the development and origin of the concept of the natural human right to self defense and why it was considered a necessity. It was solely due to the fear of authoritarian governments, and to enable a last resort for the people to abolish a government that became tyrannical and governed against the will of the people.

The first battle of the Revolutionary War in America between the "rebels" and British soldiers, was when the British army was marching to confiscate guns in the town of Concord to prevent the "rebels" from defending their interests against the tyrannical government that did not have their interests.

 

[320 Years of History]

Sure they are. Without the guns all the rest of the Rights would disappear in short order.

Get out your skis!!!

It is winter time in the Northern Hemisphere.​

Fortunately the Founders were much smarter than those who would rule us...

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
― Thomas Jefferson

 

[Elvis Obama]

Because they are unimportant?

No, because there are people such as yourself that view them as such. That is how rights vanish.

That doesn't make guns important, though. They're not. All this "bulwark against tyranny" nonsense shows how desperate gun extremists are in the defense of this right. They try to make guns out to be something they're not, in order to justify their fanaticism. They block the CDC because they believe that the CDC is part of a giant conspiracy to take away their guns. That's absurd. No one would give a thought to guns if 30,000 people a year weren't being killed by them.

They're going to be registering drones. A reasonable safety precaution, it seems to me. Why no outcry? The government has drones. If we're going to be fighting tyranny, don't we need exactly what the government has? Otherwise, what's the big deal? Home defense? What do you need for that? Fully automatic weapons? Claymore mines?

Much ado about nothing.

That is all your opinion and nothing more.

It does not display their desperation at all either. it does display that they believe the right should be protected. A belief that is supported resoundingly by the constitution. As has been said before, there is a clear avenue for those that believe like you do - write an amendment to the constitution and get it passed. Then there will not be any worry about protecting the second amendment because it would not exist. As it stands right now, the right to bear arms is no more or less important than the right of free speech or the right to vote - all enshrined in the constitution as protected rights.

Just because you may not like or disagree with a particular right does not diminish the right itself. There are plenty of people that don't support other rights such as freedom of religion or the establishment clause and even operate under the same guise of 'protecting' people in calling for its abolishment yet they too are rebuffed as it is not so simple to remove a right that has been granted protections under the constitution. Nor should it be.

Repeal the second amendment? What for? I have no more interest in doing that than I have in taking away your toaster oven rights.

No, you're 100% wrong. Gun rights are in no way as important as free speech or the right to vote. Guns were important in the late 1700's. It is 2016, and they no longer are important. If you believe that guns have exactly the same place in our society as they did in 1791, please explain why.

BTW, is your opinion not just your opinion?

No. Gun rights are not an opinion - they are a protected reality enshrined in the constitution. You can call them unimportant but that is irrelevant. The importance of a right is not an issue that the constitution really deals with - just weather they are protected or not.

Why would you repeal the second amendment? You have spent pages here describing the fact that you want to pass legislation that restricts that right. Such restrictions are going to need the second out of the way sooner or later. As I already expressed, I do not believe that you will see any real reduction in homicide rates after passing more restrictive gun control measures and I think that the evidence bears this out. If you want to ride this to its conclusion, removing the second is a necessity.

Seriously, are we having the same conversation?

I have said NOTHING which you could interpret as my desiring the repeal the second amendment, NOTHING which does not acknowledge gun rights, NOTHING that suggests that I think gun control is effective or that we need more of it, NOTHING that suggests I think there should be any legislation passed of any kind.

Yes, my opinion, if I need to clearly label it as such, is that guns are not important in 2016. An absurd non-issue which has been raised to the level of national hysteria by gun lobby propaganda and the natural proclivity of a certain segment of the American people towards paranoia.

I have written of only one thing, the prevention of unnecessary death. Period. It is my contention that the remarkably successful lobbying attempts by the NRA have stood in the way of all attempts to deal with this problem which the NRA decided may pose a threat to gun industry profits. The rest of this is just unimportant smoke and mirrors.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Suicide prevention is the least emphasized aspect of gun violence prevention, but it's impossible to commit to bringing down gun violence statistics without addressing the problem of suicide.

I find it hard to understand how anyone can object to studying the problem of gun suicide rates. Too often these victims are vets, and the debt we owe them requires that we take the issue seriously.

The CDC is prevented from tackling this issue because the gun industry fears that they will recommend a reduction in our gun intake. A gunectomy. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. No one was that thrilled with their preliminary study, which had surprises for everyone.

Because we know the gun suicide rate. We also know that it doesn't matter. Japan, Korea, and the Scandinavian countries all have much higher rates of suicide than the US, they also have very strict gun control. Thus we know that gun control laws would have zero affect on the problem. Suicide prevention is laudable but it IS a mental health issue, not a gun related issue.

Who is we? Mental health professionals? Suicide prevention experts?

Anybody with a brain.

Ah, so everybody that agrees with you has a brain and everyone that does not is a brainless fool. Gotcha.

Do you know a lot of suicide prevention experts with brains or are they all brainless fools who feel that guns and suicide are related?

 

[westwall]

Suicide prevention is the least emphasized aspect of gun violence prevention, but it's impossible to commit to bringing down gun violence statistics without addressing the problem of suicide.

I find it hard to understand how anyone can object to studying the problem of gun suicide rates. Too often these victims are vets, and the debt we owe them requires that we take the issue seriously.

The CDC is prevented from tackling this issue because the gun industry fears that they will recommend a reduction in our gun intake. A gunectomy. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. No one was that thrilled with their preliminary study, which had surprises for everyone.

Because we know the gun suicide rate. We also know that it doesn't matter. Japan, Korea, and the Scandinavian countries all have much higher rates of suicide than the US, they also have very strict gun control. Thus we know that gun control laws would have zero affect on the problem. Suicide prevention is laudable but it IS a mental health issue, not a gun related issue.

Who is we? Mental health professionals? Suicide prevention experts?

Anybody with a brain.

Ah, so everybody that agrees with you has a brain and everyone that does not is a brainless fool. Gotcha.

Do you know a lot of suicide prevention experts with brains or are they all brainless fools who feel that guns and suicide are related?

If a country has a high suicide rate (higher than the US) and they also have very strict gun control laws to the point that normal people can't have them....what does that tell you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The core of our problem is death. Death is the problem, not guns. It's a simple matter, really. We must commit as a nation to bringing those numbers down.

But we can't. And why? Because anytime anyone mentions anything pertaining to reducing gun violence deaths and injuries it is seen as an assault on gun rights. That's the real problem. The problem that makes this issue a joke.

Because the "solution" to any gun-related problem is to make it harder for the law abiding to get a gun.

2- The constitution does not prohibit gun restrictions. That too has been proven over and over again by SC rulings.

Conversely, not every restriction is constitutional.

People who stand in the way of the CDC and gun manufacturers who want to market "smart guns" or other technologies designed to reduce gun violence rates have blood on their hands.

Heh.
How will my smartgun prevent me from killing myself?

 

[Elvis Obama]

Suicide prevention is the least emphasized aspect of gun violence prevention, but it's impossible to commit to bringing down gun violence statistics without addressing the problem of suicide.

I find it hard to understand how anyone can object to studying the problem of gun suicide rates. Too often these victims are vets, and the debt we owe them requires that we take the issue seriously.

The CDC is prevented from tackling this issue because the gun industry fears that they will recommend a reduction in our gun intake. A gunectomy. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. No one was that thrilled with their preliminary study, which had surprises for everyone.

Because we know the gun suicide rate. We also know that it doesn't matter. Japan, Korea, and the Scandinavian countries all have much higher rates of suicide than the US, they also have very strict gun control. Thus we know that gun control laws would have zero affect on the problem. Suicide prevention is laudable but it IS a mental health issue, not a gun related issue.

Who is we? Mental health professionals? Suicide prevention experts?

Anybody with a brain.

Ah, so everybody that agrees with you has a brain and everyone that does not is a brainless fool. Gotcha.

Do you know a lot of suicide prevention experts with brains or are they all brainless fools who feel that guns and suicide are related?

If a country has a high suicide rate (higher than the US) and they also have very strict gun control laws to the point that normal people can't have them....what does that tell you?

Apparently you consider yourself to be an expert in everything. I do not. I leave suicide prevention to those who care. Those who care enough to make suicide prevention their life's work. I do not fear these people. I do not believe they are actually agents of treason, intent on stealing my capacity to resist tyranny. They're just nice folks who like to prevent people in despair from making an irreversible blunder.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The core of our problem is death. Death is the problem, not guns. It's a simple matter, really. We must commit as a nation to bringing those numbers down.

But we can't. And why? Because anytime anyone mentions anything pertaining to reducing gun violence deaths and injuries it is seen as an assault on gun rights. That's the real problem. The problem that makes this issue a joke.

Because the "solution" to any gun-related problem is to make it harder for the law abiding to get a gun.

2- The constitution does not prohibit gun restrictions. That too has been proven over and over again by SC rulings.

Conversely, not every restriction is constitutional.

People who stand in the way of the CDC and gun manufacturers who want to market "smart guns" or other technologies designed to reduce gun violence rates have blood on their hands.

Heh.
How will my smartgun prevent me from killing myself?

1- No, not all solutions to the problem of gun violence involves restrictions on the law abiding.

2- That's why we have a Supreme Court. They have done a good job of distinguishing between constitutional and unconstitutional gun restrictions. Are they perfect? No, but I have infinitely more trust in their ability to determine constitutionality than I have in the NRA, or you.

3- I have never stated that smart gun technology is intended to reduce suicide rates. It may, if only one person in a household can use the gun. If the technology were perfected it would certainly prevent instances where a person's gun is taken away and used against them by a criminal. It would prevent children from accidentally picking up a gun and killing themselves or others.

We can't eliminate gun violence. We can only hope to reduce it, incrementally, by trying everything we can think to try, as long as it is constitutional. PSAs have been successful in reducing car related deaths and smoking related deaths, why not try that?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The core of our problem is death. Death is the problem, not guns. It's a simple matter, really. We must commit as a nation to bringing those numbers down.

But we can't. And why? Because anytime anyone mentions anything pertaining to reducing gun violence deaths and injuries it is seen as an assault on gun rights. That's the real problem. The problem that makes this issue a joke.

Because the "solution" to any gun-related problem is to make it harder for the law abiding to get a gun.

2- The constitution does not prohibit gun restrictions. That too has been proven over and over again by SC rulings.

Conversely, not every restriction is constitutional.

People who stand in the way of the CDC and gun manufacturers who want to market "smart guns" or other technologies designed to reduce gun violence rates have blood on their hands.

Heh.
How will my smartgun prevent me from killing myself?

1- No, not all solutions to the problem of gun violence involves restrictions on the law abiding.

Like....?

2- That's why we have a Supreme Court. They have done a good job of distinguishing between constitutional and unconstitutional gun restrictions. Are they perfect? No, but I have infinitely more trust in their ability to determine constitutionality than I have in the NRA, or you.

Really?
You agree with their ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home?

3- I have never stated that smart gun technology is intended to reduce suicide rates. It may, if only one person in a household can use the gun.

So... it won't prevent me from killing myself
What about the 356,000,000 guns that do not have smart gun technology?

PSAs have been successful in reducing car related deaths and smoking related deaths, why not try that?

What sort of PSA do you suggest?

 

[FA_Q2]

No, because there are people such as yourself that view them as such. That is how rights vanish.

That doesn't make guns important, though. They're not. All this "bulwark against tyranny" nonsense shows how desperate gun extremists are in the defense of this right. They try to make guns out to be something they're not, in order to justify their fanaticism. They block the CDC because they believe that the CDC is part of a giant conspiracy to take away their guns. That's absurd. No one would give a thought to guns if 30,000 people a year weren't being killed by them.

They're going to be registering drones. A reasonable safety precaution, it seems to me. Why no outcry? The government has drones. If we're going to be fighting tyranny, don't we need exactly what the government has? Otherwise, what's the big deal? Home defense? What do you need for that? Fully automatic weapons? Claymore mines?

Much ado about nothing.

That is all your opinion and nothing more.

It does not display their desperation at all either. it does display that they believe the right should be protected. A belief that is supported resoundingly by the constitution. As has been said before, there is a clear avenue for those that believe like you do - write an amendment to the constitution and get it passed. Then there will not be any worry about protecting the second amendment because it would not exist. As it stands right now, the right to bear arms is no more or less important than the right of free speech or the right to vote - all enshrined in the constitution as protected rights.

Just because you may not like or disagree with a particular right does not diminish the right itself. There are plenty of people that don't support other rights such as freedom of religion or the establishment clause and even operate under the same guise of 'protecting' people in calling for its abolishment yet they too are rebuffed as it is not so simple to remove a right that has been granted protections under the constitution. Nor should it be.

Repeal the second amendment? What for? I have no more interest in doing that than I have in taking away your toaster oven rights.

No, you're 100% wrong. Gun rights are in no way as important as free speech or the right to vote. Guns were important in the late 1700's. It is 2016, and they no longer are important. If you believe that guns have exactly the same place in our society as they did in 1791, please explain why.

BTW, is your opinion not just your opinion?

No. Gun rights are not an opinion - they are a protected reality enshrined in the constitution. You can call them unimportant but that is irrelevant. The importance of a right is not an issue that the constitution really deals with - just weather they are protected or not.

Why would you repeal the second amendment? You have spent pages here describing the fact that you want to pass legislation that restricts that right. Such restrictions are going to need the second out of the way sooner or later. As I already expressed, I do not believe that you will see any real reduction in homicide rates after passing more restrictive gun control measures and I think that the evidence bears this out. If you want to ride this to its conclusion, removing the second is a necessity.

Seriously, are we having the same conversation?

I have said NOTHING which you could interpret as my desiring the repeal the second amendment, NOTHING which does not acknowledge gun rights, NOTHING that suggests that I think gun control is effective or that we need more of it, NOTHING that suggests I think there should be any legislation passed of any kind.

I believe that we are.

You have said nothing about restricting guns? Really?
“If people want to experiment with limiting the specific type of weapons available or the features which those weapons are allowed to have, big deal. They do not represent a serious threat to gun rights. They do not represent a undue burden on anyone.”

“I'm in favor of trying anything reasonable in order to deal with the problem. If it works, great. If not, we chuck it.”
Both statements that seem to me to call for further restrictions. One saying that we should try outright bans on particular weapons. We have already done this on so called assault weapons and that was wholly ineffective. What other types of weapons were you referring to?

In order to ‘try’ that approach we are going to need to remove the second amendment – it stands in the way of throwing restrictions at the wall until something ‘works.’

Then you show complete disdain for gun rights in general:
“No, you're 100% wrong. Gun rights are in no way as important as free speech or the right to vote. Guns were important in the late 1700's. It is 2016, and they no longer are important”

“That doesn't make guns important, though. They're not.”

“Not only do I not believe gun rights are threatened, I also don't think they're important. They exist, as toaster oven rights exist, but they're no more important.”

Toaster oven rights are not protected by the constitution because that would be asinine. You don’t need toaster oven rights to be protected. Gun rights, on the other hand, are. Some of us see good reason for that. It seems you feel that it is unimportant and standing in the way of good policy. The hatred of the NRA is a smokescreen at this point IMHO because they are nothing more than a lobby group. The NRA is not what is standing in the way of gun control – the second amendment is. They are nothing more than an advocate of such. Remove them entirely and nothing will change – another group will emerge and become the speaker for those that donate and believe that gun rights need to be advocated for. If I am misunderstanding your position then please clarify. I thought the above quotes spoke for themselves.

Yes, my opinion, if I need to clearly label it as such, is that guns are not important in 2016. An absurd non-issue which has been raised to the level of national hysteria by gun lobby propaganda and the natural proclivity of a certain segment of the American people towards paranoia.

I have written of only one thing, the prevention of unnecessary death. Period. It is my contention that the remarkably successful lobbying attempts by the NRA have stood in the way of all attempts to deal with this problem which the NRA decided may pose a threat to gun industry profits. The rest of this is just unimportant smoke and mirrors.

And I addressed the idea of ‘preventing death.’ You have addressed ONE SINGLE field of ‘preventable death’ – gun deaths. If you are not talking about guns but instead preventable death why the laser focus? The NRA has actually advocated for many things that help prevent gun deaths. They are very big on gun safety. What they are against is legislation against gun rights. Above you state that you are not advocating for laws requiring grater gun controls but you rail against the attempts of the NRA to stop that legislation.

 

[Elvis Obama]

The core of our problem is death. Death is the problem, not guns. It's a simple matter, really. We must commit as a nation to bringing those numbers down.

But we can't. And why? Because anytime anyone mentions anything pertaining to reducing gun violence deaths and injuries it is seen as an assault on gun rights. That's the real problem. The problem that makes this issue a joke.

Because the "solution" to any gun-related problem is to make it harder for the law abiding to get a gun.

2- The constitution does not prohibit gun restrictions. That too has been proven over and over again by SC rulings.

Conversely, not every restriction is constitutional.

People who stand in the way of the CDC and gun manufacturers who want to market "smart guns" or other technologies designed to reduce gun violence rates have blood on their hands.

Heh.
How will my smartgun prevent me from killing myself?

1- No, not all solutions to the problem of gun violence involves restrictions on the law abiding.

Like....?

2- That's why we have a Supreme Court. They have done a good job of distinguishing between constitutional and unconstitutional gun restrictions. Are they perfect? No, but I have infinitely more trust in their ability to determine constitutionality than I have in the NRA, or you.

Really?
You agree with their ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home?

3- I have never stated that smart gun technology is intended to reduce suicide rates. It may, if only one person in a household can use the gun.

So... it won't prevent me from killing myself
What about the 356,000,000 guns that do not have smart gun technology?

PSAs have been successful in reducing car related deaths and smoking related deaths, why not try that?

What sort of PSA do you suggest?

1- Like PSAs and smart gun technology. Mandating such weapons is, imo, unconstitutional, but I believe that having such weapons on the market could reduce gun deaths. Or not. It could also increase gun ownership, since there are likely to be people who don't want a gun in their house, believing that it could harm their loved ones, and willing to have one they think is safer.

2- Hell no. Heller was a stupid decision. Irrelevant, though. Read the dissenting opinion of Justice Stevens. He never says that Americans do not have the right to own guns. He merely says that the right to do so is not found in the 2nd amendment. So now, after Heller, it's double protected! Suspenders and a belt! And yet, paranoiacs are still convinced that them pesky revenoors is comin' fer their guns! Would a third constitutional protection make you less jittery? A fourth?

3- Huh? Do you love anyone? If they were severely depressed and suicidal, would you want them to kill themselves?

I have no ideas for PSAs. Why should I? Let the mental health professionals and suicide prevention experts design those campaigns. I don't even know that they would suggest PSAs. I only know that they are being muzzled by cowards, so we don't know what they would recommend. So far the CDC prepared a preliminary report at the behest of the president which had surprises for everyone and which recommended further study. There will be no further study, because the NRA believes that further efforts along those lines will reduce gun industry profits.

 

[Elvis Obama]

That doesn't make guns important, though. They're not. All this "bulwark against tyranny" nonsense shows how desperate gun extremists are in the defense of this right. They try to make guns out to be something they're not, in order to justify their fanaticism. They block the CDC because they believe that the CDC is part of a giant conspiracy to take away their guns. That's absurd. No one would give a thought to guns if 30,000 people a year weren't being killed by them.

They're going to be registering drones. A reasonable safety precaution, it seems to me. Why no outcry? The government has drones. If we're going to be fighting tyranny, don't we need exactly what the government has? Otherwise, what's the big deal? Home defense? What do you need for that? Fully automatic weapons? Claymore mines?

Much ado about nothing.

That is all your opinion and nothing more.

It does not display their desperation at all either. it does display that they believe the right should be protected. A belief that is supported resoundingly by the constitution. As has been said before, there is a clear avenue for those that believe like you do - write an amendment to the constitution and get it passed. Then there will not be any worry about protecting the second amendment because it would not exist. As it stands right now, the right to bear arms is no more or less important than the right of free speech or the right to vote - all enshrined in the constitution as protected rights.

Just because you may not like or disagree with a particular right does not diminish the right itself. There are plenty of people that don't support other rights such as freedom of religion or the establishment clause and even operate under the same guise of 'protecting' people in calling for its abolishment yet they too are rebuffed as it is not so simple to remove a right that has been granted protections under the constitution. Nor should it be.

Repeal the second amendment? What for? I have no more interest in doing that than I have in taking away your toaster oven rights.

No, you're 100% wrong. Gun rights are in no way as important as free speech or the right to vote. Guns were important in the late 1700's. It is 2016, and they no longer are important. If you believe that guns have exactly the same place in our society as they did in 1791, please explain why.

BTW, is your opinion not just your opinion?

No. Gun rights are not an opinion - they are a protected reality enshrined in the constitution. You can call them unimportant but that is irrelevant. The importance of a right is not an issue that the constitution really deals with - just weather they are protected or not.

Why would you repeal the second amendment? You have spent pages here describing the fact that you want to pass legislation that restricts that right. Such restrictions are going to need the second out of the way sooner or later. As I already expressed, I do not believe that you will see any real reduction in homicide rates after passing more restrictive gun control measures and I think that the evidence bears this out. If you want to ride this to its conclusion, removing the second is a necessity.

Seriously, are we having the same conversation?

I have said NOTHING which you could interpret as my desiring the repeal the second amendment, NOTHING which does not acknowledge gun rights, NOTHING that suggests that I think gun control is effective or that we need more of it, NOTHING that suggests I think there should be any legislation passed of any kind.

I believe that we are.

You have said nothing about restricting guns? Really?
“If people want to experiment with limiting the specific type of weapons available or the features which those weapons are allowed to have, big deal. They do not represent a serious threat to gun rights. They do not represent a undue burden on anyone.”

“I'm in favor of trying anything reasonable in order to deal with the problem. If it works, great. If not, we chuck it.”
Both statements that seem to me to call for further restrictions. One saying that we should try outright bans on particular weapons. We have already done this on so called assault weapons and that was wholly ineffective. What other types of weapons were you referring to?

In order to ‘try’ that approach we are going to need to remove the second amendment – it stands in the way of throwing restrictions at the wall until something ‘works.’

Then you show complete disdain for gun rights in general:
“No, you're 100% wrong. Gun rights are in no way as important as free speech or the right to vote. Guns were important in the late 1700's. It is 2016, and they no longer are important”

“That doesn't make guns important, though. They're not.”

“Not only do I not believe gun rights are threatened, I also don't think they're important. They exist, as toaster oven rights exist, but they're no more important.”

Toaster oven rights are not protected by the constitution because that would be asinine. You don’t need toaster oven rights to be protected. Gun rights, on the other hand, are. Some of us see good reason for that. It seems you feel that it is unimportant and standing in the way of good policy. The hatred of the NRA is a smokescreen at this point IMHO because they are nothing more than a lobby group. The NRA is not what is standing in the way of gun control – the second amendment is. They are nothing more than an advocate of such. Remove them entirely and nothing will change – another group will emerge and become the speaker for those that donate and believe that gun rights need to be advocated for. If I am misunderstanding your position then please clarify. I thought the above quotes spoke for themselves.

Yes, my opinion, if I need to clearly label it as such, is that guns are not important in 2016. An absurd non-issue which has been raised to the level of national hysteria by gun lobby propaganda and the natural proclivity of a certain segment of the American people towards paranoia.

I have written of only one thing, the prevention of unnecessary death. Period. It is my contention that the remarkably successful lobbying attempts by the NRA have stood in the way of all attempts to deal with this problem which the NRA decided may pose a threat to gun industry profits. The rest of this is just unimportant smoke and mirrors.

And I addressed the idea of ‘preventing death.’ You have addressed ONE SINGLE field of ‘preventable death’ – gun deaths. If you are not talking about guns but instead preventable death why the laser focus? The NRA has actually advocated for many things that help prevent gun deaths. They are very big on gun safety. What they are against is legislation against gun rights. Above you state that you are not advocating for laws requiring grater gun controls but you rail against the attempts of the NRA to stop that legislation.

"I thought the above quotes spoke for themselves."
Indeed they do, if you read them thoughtfully.

1- I don't believe in gun control. Others do. I think this is a bad idea because it is ineffective and divisive. It is not divisive for rational reasons, it is divisive for irrational reasons. However, I don't care one way or the other. If people want to try these ideas I say let them. As long as they are deemed constitutional. Maybe I'm wrong and they will be effective. The bottom line is that gun control is not a big deal. Waiting periods and background checks and limits on magazine sizes and specific types of weaponry. None of it is an undue burden on anyone. None of it is a crypto-fascist attempt to steal your guns so Big Brother can take over. They're merely attempts to bring down the death rates. If they work, great. If not, no one has been unduly burdened by the attempt.

2- The second amendment has REPEATEDLY been ruled by the SC to be NO barrier to reasonable gun regulations.

3- Yup, guns are unimportant. They were really important in 1791. They aren't now. If there is one thing I find most absurd in the arguments about guns it's this ridiculous notion that nothing has changed since 1791.

It's really easy. I say that guns are unimportant, and that the reasons the FFs created the second amendment no longer pertain. There are no longer militias and guns no longer play a part in preventing tyranny. You apparently claim they are important, but so far you have refused to explain why.

4- The subject of this thread is gun fatalities. I have addressed other causes of preventable death, like car accidents and smoking. I don't advocate for the elimination of cars, and I don't advocate for making the speed limit 10 MPH. What would not be tolerable, however, is preventing the auto industry from developing seat belts or air bags. Or preventing the government from advertising about the importance of preventing forest fires or telling you that smoking is bad for you. The tobacco industry didn't like that one bit. They fought against it, but they didn't have paranoiacs on their side, pushing back. The prevention of unnecessary gun fatalities should not be handled differently than any other public health matter.

 

[320 Years of History]

That is all your opinion and nothing more.

It does not display their desperation at all either. it does display that they believe the right should be protected. A belief that is supported resoundingly by the constitution. As has been said before, there is a clear avenue for those that believe like you do - write an amendment to the constitution and get it passed. Then there will not be any worry about protecting the second amendment because it would not exist. As it stands right now, the right to bear arms is no more or less important than the right of free speech or the right to vote - all enshrined in the constitution as protected rights.

Just because you may not like or disagree with a particular right does not diminish the right itself. There are plenty of people that don't support other rights such as freedom of religion or the establishment clause and even operate under the same guise of 'protecting' people in calling for its abolishment yet they too are rebuffed as it is not so simple to remove a right that has been granted protections under the constitution. Nor should it be.

Repeal the second amendment? What for? I have no more interest in doing that than I have in taking away your toaster oven rights.

No, you're 100% wrong. Gun rights are in no way as important as free speech or the right to vote. Guns were important in the late 1700's. It is 2016, and they no longer are important. If you believe that guns have exactly the same place in our society as they did in 1791, please explain why.

BTW, is your opinion not just your opinion?

No. Gun rights are not an opinion - they are a protected reality enshrined in the constitution. You can call them unimportant but that is irrelevant. The importance of a right is not an issue that the constitution really deals with - just weather they are protected or not.

Why would you repeal the second amendment? You have spent pages here describing the fact that you want to pass legislation that restricts that right. Such restrictions are going to need the second out of the way sooner or later. As I already expressed, I do not believe that you will see any real reduction in homicide rates after passing more restrictive gun control measures and I think that the evidence bears this out. If you want to ride this to its conclusion, removing the second is a necessity.

Seriously, are we having the same conversation?

I have said NOTHING which you could interpret as my desiring the repeal the second amendment, NOTHING which does not acknowledge gun rights, NOTHING that suggests that I think gun control is effective or that we need more of it, NOTHING that suggests I think there should be any legislation passed of any kind.

I believe that we are.

You have said nothing about restricting guns? Really?
“If people want to experiment with limiting the specific type of weapons available or the features which those weapons are allowed to have, big deal. They do not represent a serious threat to gun rights. They do not represent a undue burden on anyone.”

“I'm in favor of trying anything reasonable in order to deal with the problem. If it works, great. If not, we chuck it.”
Both statements that seem to me to call for further restrictions. One saying that we should try outright bans on particular weapons. We have already done this on so called assault weapons and that was wholly ineffective. What other types of weapons were you referring to?

In order to ‘try’ that approach we are going to need to remove the second amendment – it stands in the way of throwing restrictions at the wall until something ‘works.’

Then you show complete disdain for gun rights in general:
“No, you're 100% wrong. Gun rights are in no way as important as free speech or the right to vote. Guns were important in the late 1700's. It is 2016, and they no longer are important”

“That doesn't make guns important, though. They're not.”

“Not only do I not believe gun rights are threatened, I also don't think they're important. They exist, as toaster oven rights exist, but they're no more important.”

Toaster oven rights are not protected by the constitution because that would be asinine. You don’t need toaster oven rights to be protected. Gun rights, on the other hand, are. Some of us see good reason for that. It seems you feel that it is unimportant and standing in the way of good policy. The hatred of the NRA is a smokescreen at this point IMHO because they are nothing more than a lobby group. The NRA is not what is standing in the way of gun control – the second amendment is. They are nothing more than an advocate of such. Remove them entirely and nothing will change – another group will emerge and become the speaker for those that donate and believe that gun rights need to be advocated for. If I am misunderstanding your position then please clarify. I thought the above quotes spoke for themselves.

Yes, my opinion, if I need to clearly label it as such, is that guns are not important in 2016. An absurd non-issue which has been raised to the level of national hysteria by gun lobby propaganda and the natural proclivity of a certain segment of the American people towards paranoia.

I have written of only one thing, the prevention of unnecessary death. Period. It is my contention that the remarkably successful lobbying attempts by the NRA have stood in the way of all attempts to deal with this problem which the NRA decided may pose a threat to gun industry profits. The rest of this is just unimportant smoke and mirrors.

And I addressed the idea of ‘preventing death.’ You have addressed ONE SINGLE field of ‘preventable death’ – gun deaths. If you are not talking about guns but instead preventable death why the laser focus? The NRA has actually advocated for many things that help prevent gun deaths. They are very big on gun safety. What they are against is legislation against gun rights. Above you state that you are not advocating for laws requiring grater gun controls but you rail against the attempts of the NRA to stop that legislation.

"I thought the above quotes spoke for themselves."
Indeed they do, if you read them thoughtfully.

1- I don't believe in gun control. Others do. I think this is a bad idea because it is ineffective and divisive. It is not divisive for rational reasons, it is divisive for irrational reasons. However, I don't care one way or the other. If people want to try these ideas I say let them. As long as they are deemed constitutional. Maybe I'm wrong and they will be effective. The bottom line is that gun control is not a big deal. Waiting periods and background checks and limits on magazine sizes and specific types of weaponry. None of it is an undue burden on anyone. None of it is a crypto-fascist attempt to steal your guns so Big Brother can take over. They're merely attempts to bring down the death rates. If they work, great. If not, no one has been unduly burdened by the attempt.

2- The second amendment has REPEATEDLY been ruled by the SC to be NO barrier to reasonable gun regulations.

3- Yup, guns are unimportant. They were really important in 1791. They aren't now. If there is one thing I find most absurd in the arguments about guns it's this ridiculous notion that nothing has changed since 1791.

It's really easy. I say that guns are unimportant, and that the reasons the FFs created the second amendment no longer pertain. There are no longer militias and [personal firearms] no longer play a part in preventing tyranny. You apparently claim they are important, but so far you have refused to explain why.

4- The subject of this thread is gun fatalities. I have addressed other causes of preventable death, like car accidents and smoking. I don't advocate for the elimination of cars, and I don't advocate for making the speed limit 10 MPH. What would not be tolerable, however, is preventing the auto industry from developing seat belts or air bags. Or preventing the government from advertising about the importance of preventing forest fires or telling you that smoking is bad for you. The tobacco industry didn't like that one bit. They fought against it, but they didn't have paranoiacs on their side, pushing back. The prevention of unnecessary gun fatalities should not be handled differently than any other public health matter.

Red:
Absolutely!!!

Most especially, I could not have better articulated the "mountains and molehills" aspect of the opposition to legislation aimed at keeping people alive by controlling gun use, access and ownership. Well done.

Blue:
Is there really anything of utmost import "Big Brother" can't do that it might want to? Afterall "Big Brother" isn't any single person or one small group (notwithstanding the various "quietly in the background, they control it all" theories pertaining to organizations like the Bilderberg Group and Council on Foreign Relations ). It's the "powers that be" in both the private and public sectors, and if "they" want something to happen, quite frankly, it's going to happen. What doesn't happen is what "they" don't care about.