What is serving to prevent law enforcement officers and military personnel from utilizing firearms for the purpose of committing harm to themselves or others? Just this morning there was a shooting at the Pearl Harbor navy yard, committed by a sailor.
Thank you for sharing. I have never thought of suicide. Thank G-d, I have care for my Depression. I take 75 mg Effexor per day. Sadly I do many things which shorten my life -- I weigh 155 kg, I eat very much deeply fried food, I consume very much spice and sodium.
Such things do happen. All harm can not be prevented. But guns in hands of private citizens many of whom have mental issues cost 30,000 to 40,000 lives per year.
Once again, the obvious question of "so what?" must be asked with regard to the above. What ultimate, meaningful difference, does such actually make? If these individuals truly cannot be trusted to make competent decisions due to their mental state, it sounds as if they cannot be left alone to any extent, and must be subject to constant, continual care and observation in their day-to-day lives, for the duration of their natural lives.
If depression is experienced on the part of yourself, how can it be concluded that the position being demonstrated on the part of yourself is rational, reasonable, or should otherwise be trusted?
Sadly, most American Taxpayers are very angry at the prospect of poor and disabled people being helped with the money they can spend on entertainment/luxury.
It is primarily their own lives that are lost through their own actions, so ultimately who is tasked with bearing the cost of the lives lost?
Allowing people with Severe Mental Conditions and people with drug addiction access to firearms is similar to "placing a stumbling block in front of the blind".
How is this a valid comparison? Cops are much more likely to be involved in high stress situations in which they have to make difficult decisions about whether to shoot or not. CCW holders have it easy in comparison.
How do those with concealed carry permits have it easier than law enforcement officers, when they have none of the benefits?
The opposite is true: "This study found that stricter state-level firearm legislation was associated with lower rates of fatal police shootings. For states with the strongest firearm laws, the incidence rate of fatal police shootings was more than 50% lower than for states with the weakest firearm laws. We used data from The Counted to assess rates of fatal police shootings; following existing research that looks at firearm homicide and suicide rates,8 we used data from the Brady Center, which calculates firearm legislative scores by state. Consistent with previous research on fatal police shootings, we found that the majority of fatalities were caused by firearms and that in slightly more than half of these cases the victim was also armed.6,19,20 Victims were overwhelmingly male and disproportionally from a racial/ethnic minority group.6,20,21" https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2017.303770 Lax gun control contributes to an atmosphere of fear and paranoia in which the police are afraid of being shot if they don't shoot first. That's not freedom.
Thus demonstrating the classic causation/correlation substitution fallacy, to suggest the two may in some way be connected and related, but doing absolutely nothing to actually prove such as being the case.
The ability to radio for backup, kevlar vests, access to fully-automatic firearms, no limitation on magazine capacity, no limitation on the number of magazines they can carry on their person, no requirement that their firearms must be concealed in public, and qualified immunity that offers them the legal benefit of the doubt when they kill someone in the line of duty.
It was a reply to a post suggesting we deny second amendment rights to those who "may" use a gun to harm themselves or others. That would require disarming law enforcement. The question is why should me make it easy for rapists and murderers?
As long as guns exist, they will be accessible. Get back to me when you figure out how to uninvent them.
First you r lack of knowledge of gun laws is amazing. It is illegal to sell people guns with the above mentioned problems. Also you keep talking about how many suicides that happen with guns but ignore how many with out why is that? can it be because it also shows that your number of how many suicides by guns wrong. In the US we only have about 40 thousand suicides in a year are you claiming that every suicide was by gun? You also ignore the 100,000+ times guns are used every year in self defense. Are you saying that my family and I have less right to protect ourselves than someone that can kill them selves in multiple way as shown in countries that have strict gun laws but higher suicide rates?
Both the city of Chicago and the district of columbia have had their turn at being classified the murder capital of the united states. Each during the time period when the cities maintained an absolute prohibition on handgun possession within their boundaries. There were no legal circumstances under which an individually could legally acquire a handgun. Yet nearly one hundred percent of murders were committed with handguns. Why did such regulations not work during these time periods?
Could you clarify what the hell you are talking about? Just tossing out numbers without explanation isn't really conducive to discussion...
