What's wrong with having background checks for gun ownership?

[starshiptrooper]

Don’t you think that is being done too? But why no consider suicides as a cost of having guns around. When there is no quick and easy method of suicide available, some of those suicides will come to their senses before it is too late. Not all, but some.

But the vast majority of suicides are not done by people who are “really determined”. They have bouts of depression that come and go, and if they can get through a bout without giving in, they may recover. If other methods take more time to plan or execute, many will recover before they can follow through.

Answer this question. How does giving up my gun prevent someone else from committing suicide?

 

[starshiptrooper]

I find this sort of statement difficult (that’s polite: “impossible” is a better word) to square with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Perhaps you would care to share with us how you square the them?

Show me how it is incompatible and quote the verses that support your belief first.

Anything in this world can kill you: too much water, too much blunt force trauma by a folding chair, too much sugar, etc. That does not imply that the difference between water, a chair, sugar, an AR-15 and an automobile are negligible or irrelevant. I would not suggest that the next time you wish to bake a cake that you substitute chairs for sugar in the recipe.

You can make a cake with stevia extract or honey. It is a different substance but it still accomplishes the same end. You can kill someone with a car or a gun. The result is still the same.

To claim that these differences (which include the purposes for which things are manufactured) are irrelevant is to confess to some sort of rational, perceptual or sensual impairment that limits your ability to distinguish between one thing and another. The effect of this impairment, however, is to render things meaningless or, in this case, to refer their meaning exclusively to their relationship to death. I don’t know if that’s what you intended to do here, but that’s what you’ve managed to do.

Cars have been used to kill people, so have guns. Both implements have also been used for non-violent purposes.

The fact that the design of one makes it easier to kill people in certain situations is only ethically problematic in your opinion, not mine.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Answer this question. How does giving up my gun prevent someone else from committing suicide?

It’s statistical. If you give up your gun, and many others also give up their guns, guns in general will be less handy. So someone with suicidal tendencies will have to spend a little more time getting a weapon. That extra time may be just the time needed for the bout of depression (which does come and go) to pass.

Here are more facts about suicide:

It is the 10th leading cause of death in the US overall.
On average there are 113 suicides every day.
Firearms account for about 50% of all suicides.
For every suicide there are about 25 attempts at suicide.
11% of all teenage deaths are due to suicide.

 

[GEddie]

It’s statistical. If you give up your gun, and many others also give up their guns, guns in general will be less handy. So someone with suicidal tendencies will have to spend a little more time getting a weapon. That extra time may be just the time needed for the bout of depression (which does come and go) to pass.

Here are more facts about suicide:

It is the 10th leading cause of death in the US overall.
On average there are 113 suicides every day.
Firearms account for about 50% of all suicides.
For every suicide there are about 25 attempts at suicide.
11% of all teenage deaths are due to suicide.

While every one of those deaths is a tragedy, suicide will always be a leading cause of youth death.

Youths are for the most part extremely healthy and so unlikely to die from “natural” causes.

So even if all firearms were consigned to the ocean floor tomorrow, suicide would, lamentably, remain a significant percentage of death in youth.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Cathoholic]

Deo Volente.

You mentioned . . .

The term is used to distinguish a certain class of weaponry from those weapons designed to destroy or damage buildings, vehicles, equipment or other weapons

.

Perhaps you could link me to a military link on this as it concerns the AR-15.

Because the phrase “anti-personnel weapons” could be used to merely rhetorically charge the terminology of the discussion.

I don’t want to see the phrase cherry-picked in a way that emotions replace rational discussion.

(If a civillian AR-15 is classified the same as a semi automatic pistol, then I would also ask what rationale is there for banning an AR-15 and not a Colt 45 acp? Are ,“knives” also “anti personnel weapons”? This usage would also raise other questions so I want it defined in relation to a civillian AR-15 by the military before I lend my comments).

So I do want to see the term the way the military uses it, in relation to a civillian (not military with select fire full auto) context.

No offence, but I’d like to see what THEY, the military (not you) say about this in conjunction with the AR-15.

Thanks.

 

[Rau]

Deo Volente.

You mentioned . . .

.

Perhaps you could link me to a military link on this as it concerns the AR-15.

Because the phrase “anti-personnel weapons” could be used to merely rhetorically charge the terminology of the discussion.

I don’t want to see the phrase cherry-picked in a way that emotions replace rational discussion.

(If a civillian AR-15 is classified the same as a semi automatic pistol, then I would also ask what rationale is there for banning an AR-15 and not a Colt 45 acp? Are ,“knives” also “anti personnel weapons”? This usage would also raise other questions so I want it defined in relation to a civillian AR-15 by the military before I lend my comments).

So I do want to see the term the way the military uses it, in relation to a civillian (not military with select fire full auto) context.

No offence, but I’d like to see what THEY, the military (not you) say about this in conjunction with the AR-15.

Thanks.

I believe the term “anti-personnel weapon” is meant to be read at face value. Much as one reads the term “people mover” or “transportation vehicle” or “digging implement” or “fire-fighting appliance” at face-value. Nothing to over-think here.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle.

You said:

It’s statistical. If you give up your gun, and many others also give up their guns, guns in general will be less handy.

Who gets to choose which “statistics”?

What if John Lott (here) says his statistics say we ought to have LESS restrictive gun laws?

Or is it ONLY the “statistic” YOU cite and no other “statistics” should figure into the risk/benefit ratio of society as a whole?

Why do “statistics” that you or some other gun grabber cite, require good law abiding citizens to forfeit their Constitutional rights?

 

[Cathoholic]

Rau. You said . . .

I believe the term “anti-personnel weapon” is meant to be read at face value. Much as one reads the term “people mover” or “transportation vehicle” or “digging implement” or “fire-fighting appliance” at face-value. Nothing to over-think here.

That’s fine.

But since YOU used it in this military context, it should be pretty easy for you to cite this.

Why do we need (functioning) rapid fire military style anti-personnel weapons in thd hands on the citizenry ?

Or if it is irrelevant to the discussion (because “knives” etc. are “anti-personnel weapons”) then just say so.

But then also don’t use the phrase to try to bolster your argument.

I read a news story about someone throwing a tennis shoe (I can’t recall against who. I think they threw it at then President Bush) and being charged with “assault with a deadly weapon”.

Would you say “tennis shoes” are “anti-personnel weapons”?

 

[Rau]

But since YOU used it in this military context, it should be pretty easy for you to cite this.

Or if it is irrelevant to the discussion (because “knives” etc. are “anti-personnel weapons”) then just say so.

But then also don’t use the phrase to try to bolster your argument.

I read a news story about someone throwing a tennis shoe (I can’t recall against who. I think they threw it at then President Bush) and being charged with “assault with a deadly weapon”.

Would you say “tennis shoes” are “anti-personnel weapons”?

I think you are still overthinking this. A tennis shoe is footwear. I can throw it at someone too. But why are tennis shoes made and sold? For which purpose? The intended purpose is “benign”. The same goes for cars, diggers, bread knives, steak knives, fishing knives, and so on. Now, bayonet - that’s a little different I think. [BTW: many of these military style weapons are equipped to attach a bayonet too.]

The AR-15 (and variants of it) was not made for a benign purpose. It’s made to shoot people. I think that’s reason enough to describe it as an anti-personal weapon. I believe “assault weapon” is the more commonplace term - typically referring to military weapons adapted for civilian use. The military variant might be automatic, the civilian semi-automatic. The purpose - the same.

But of all gun types, handguns are responsible for the most homicides. These are anti-personal weapons too.

The US situation seems impossibly difficult to change within even a generation. I read that there are more than 300 million guns in circulation. More than 4 million AR-15s…like this:

 

[Monte_RCMS]

They had 3 or 4 men per plane. You can only get one or two people at the door at a time. There just isn’t room for more. The doors could have been made like they are today - impossible to breach without equipment that you just can’t carry aboard the plane.

On the other hand, if they were to rely on guns, there is a good chance that a stray shot would puncture the hull, or damage a critical flight control. It is much safer just to keep a strong door locked.

Actually, the hijackers rehearsed and planned the operation.

Little holes don’t cause that much damage.

They planned this out.

AND they knew the crew would be unarmed.

If they suspected the crew would be armed, they might have not even bothered with the entire operation as it would have been unfeasible.

Consider that very few radical muslim terrorist attacks take place where they know there will be effective armed resistance.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

It’s statistical. If you give up your gun, and many others also give up their guns, guns in general will be less handy. So someone with suicidal tendencies will have to spend a little more time getting a weapon. That extra time may be just the time needed for the bout of depression (which does come and go) to pass.

Here are more facts about suicide:

It is the 10th leading cause of death in the US overall.
On average there are 113 suicides every day.
Firearms account for about 50% of all suicides.
For every suicide there are about 25 attempts at suicide.
11% of all teenage deaths are due to suicide.

France has extremely difficult firearms restrictions, yet the terrorists had no difficulty in smuggling in all the weapons they needed.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I think you are still overthinking this. A tennis shoe is footwear. I can throw it at someone too. But why are tennis shoes made and sold? For which purpose? The intended purpose is “benign”. The same goes for cars, diggers, bread knives, steak knives, fishing knives, and so on. Now, bayonet - that’s a little different I think. [BTW: many of these military style weapons are equipped to attach a bayonet too.]

The AR-15 (and variants of it) was not made for a benign purpose. It’s made to shoot people. I think that’s reason enough to describe it as an anti-personal weapon. I believe “assault weapon” is the more commonplace term - typically referring to military weapons adapted for civilian use. The military variant might be automatic, the civilian semi-automatic. The purpose - the same.

The AR-15 is the ideal home defense weapon for women.

Almost no recoil … whereas a 12 gauge shotgun will blow a light framed person backwards.

The AR-15 makes little noise, so the startle effect is minimal.

It is self loading. So called semi automatic.

It is compact and easy to handle in a confined space such as a hallway.

And, based on my own experience, it is an accurate weapon.

The basic AR-15 is only about $500, so it is affordable.

AND, since one of the criteria for an “assault weapon” is the black color, you can buy them in pink.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

LeafByNiggle.

You said:

Who gets to choose which “statistics”?

What if John Lott (here) says his statistics say we ought to have LESS restrictive gun laws?

Or is it ONLY the “statistic” YOU cite and no other “statistics” should figure into the risk/benefit ratio of society as a whole?

Why do “statistics” that you or some other gun grabber cite, require good law abiding citizens to forfeit their Constitutional rights?

John Lott has published a great deal of very useful information.

More-Guns-Less-Crime

johnrlott.blogspot.com

 

[Rau]

…Consider that very few radical muslim terrorist attacks take place where they know there will be effective armed resistance.

Not if resistance (or factors of any kind) would prevent them doing carnage. But they are quite happy to lose their lives and take a plane load with them. Or a building load.

 

[Murmurs]

The AR-15 is the ideal home defense weapon for women.

Almost no recoil … whereas a 12 gauge shotgun will blow a light framed person backwards.

The AR-15 makes little noise, so the startle effect is minimal.

It is self loading. So called semi automatic.

It is compact and easy to handle in a confined space such as a hallway.

And, based on my own experience, it is an accurate weapon.

The basic AR-15 is only about $500, so it is affordable.

AND, since one of the criteria for an “assault weapon” is the black color, you can buy them in pink.

Fond of wearing Chanel’s ‘Rendez-vous’ lipstick I may be, but I’d rather see all firearms banned than have them available in pink…

That aside, one has to agree (and also decry the fact that anyone feels such a weapon is needed for home defence at all).

 

[Monte_RCMS]

It’s statistical. If you give up your gun, and many others also give up their guns, guns in general will be less handy. So someone with suicidal tendencies will have to spend a little more time getting a weapon. That extra time may be just the time needed for the bout of depression (which does come and go) to pass.

Here are more facts about suicide:

It is the 10th leading cause of death in the US overall.
On average there are 113 suicides every day.
Firearms account for about 50% of all suicides.
For every suicide there are about 25 attempts at suicide.
11% of all teenage deaths are due to suicide.

Japan has almost no guns.

But they have an enormous suicide rate.

[They also have few militant islamic terrorists]

Below is a ranking of countries and the number of suicides per 100,000 people.
Country Suicide rates per 100,000 people
Hungary 21.0
Iceland 10.4
Italy 5.5
Japan 19.4
22 more rows

 

[Rau]

The AR-15 is the ideal home defense weapon for women…

At least we are now agreed that they are designed to shoot people.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

AND, what I found really sad, is that the club had an off-duty cop doing security out front who engaged Mateen who started shooting while still outside. The cop missed… THEN, because the police were called immediately, other cops started to arrive on-scene. Two of the first to arrive were SWAT team members; they both fired at him and missed! Unbelievable!

So the anti-terrorism people need to rethink the response.

There are only about 900 suspected terrorists here among us.

And only about 50 requiring 24/7 surveillance.

Sleepers.

They can be rounded up and at least deported.

Easily.

allenbwest.com/matt-palumbo/nra-finally-breaks-silence-on-orlando-and-liberals-are-furious

 

[Rau]

Japan has almost no guns.

But they have an enormous suicide rate.

They also have few militant islamic terrorists]

Japan has effectively zero immigration. The Muslim population is almost unnoticed, one source suggesting it’s less than 0.08%, another suggesting about 70,000 persons (mostly not Japanese but gainfully employed expats).

The figures for the US are about 1% and about 3.3 Million.

“[The] horrific shooting at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater has been a reminder that America’s gun control laws are the loosest in the developed world and its rate of gun-related homicide is the highest. Of the world’s 23 “rich” countries, the U.S. gun-related murder rate is almost 20 times that of the other 22. With almost one privately owned firearm per person, America’s ownership rate is the highest in the world; tribal-conflict-torn Yemen is ranked second, with a rate about half of America’s”.

theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

 

[Rau]

France has extremely difficult firearms restrictions, yet the terrorists had no difficulty in smuggling in all the weapons they needed.

Which is an argument for:

(a) Effective border protection; OR
(b) Free access to weapons throughout France