Gun Control

AbusesToilets

Seems anti-gun crowd in Congress are up to their usual nonsense this Christmas season.

Have a read of this, and come back with your claims that those with an anti-gun agenda aren't looking to ban firearms en masse.

Text of the Assault Weapon Ban Bill of 2015:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4269/text

robindch

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The 2nd Amendment enshrines the right of a citizen to possess firearms to protect themselves, whatever the circumstances.

Not sure which constitution you're referring to there, but the Second Amendment to the US constitution states that citizens have a right to keep weapons specifically for use in federal-level military units intended for the country's defense. There's nothing there at all about owning weapons "to protect themselves" - quite the opposite in fact, as the amendment makes clear:

Second Amendment to the US Constitution wrote:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Being capable of protecting your family and property should be something that any responsible citizen aspires to.

In hunter-gatherer and tribe-level societies which do not have coordinated security or judicial services, that's correct. However, in societies which have developed to the level of city-states and nation-states, there are spaces for police, military and judicial roles.

So, in countries like the US, these roles are well-developed and well-coordinated and capable of providing a much higher average degree of security and safety than uncoordinated people with loaded weapons, few or no rules of engagement, and a patently false belief that they're making the world a safer place.

InTheTrees

robindch wrote: »

Not sure which constitution you're referring to there, but the Second Amendment to the US constitution states that citizens have a right to keep weapons specifically for use in federal-level military units intended for the country's defense. There's nothing there at all about owning weapons "to protect themselves" - quite the opposite in fact, as the amendment makes clear:In hunter-gatherer and tribe-level societies which do not have coordinated security or judicial services, that's correct.

Also the 2nd amendment "enshrines" nothing.

There's already federal controls against owning all sorts of weapons so there are "gun control" laws.

robindch

InTheTrees wrote: »

Also the 2nd amendment "enshrines" nothing.

Well, as above, it enshrines the right to hold one or more guns intended for use in a state-level military unit.

InTheTrees wrote: »

There's already federal controls against owning all sorts of weapons so there are "gun control" laws.

Yes, there are laws which control access to and use of guns, just as there are laws controlling access to and use of other defensive and offensive weaponry (though these laws tend to regulate the products of industries which don't have the kind of vicious lobbying provided by organizations like the NRA).

Regardless of that, until there are a whole lot more of these "gun control" laws pushed through, tens of thousands of people annually will continue to be injured and killed by guns in the USA.

AbusesToilets

The Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation, both of the meaning of the term militia and on the concept of personal defense.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights, to my knowledge, serve to lay out the limits of the Government's power. Saying they enshrine intrinsic rights belonging to the citizenry, seems fairly apt description.

Your well developed society is certainly capable of taking action after a crime has been committed. I wouldn't have much confidence in their ability to stop a violent crime in progress.

IrishTrajan

robindch wrote: »

Not sure which constitution you're referring to there, but the Second Amendment to the US constitution states that citizens have a right to keep weapons specifically for use in federal-level military units intended for the country's defense.

You're ignoring the latter half. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". It makes no mention of the right of a militia to bear arms specifically, but the people having that right.

robindch

IrishTrajan wrote: »

It makes no mention of the right of a militia to bear arms specifically, but the people having that right.

Close, but not quite right. The sentence has a fairly straightforward meaning in English - there's a piece of text which gives a condition for some result at the start and then the dependent clause immediately following this. A simple example might be "A raincloud being visible, I decided to take an umbrella". In this, the conditional is "a raincloud being visible" and the dependent being "it's wise to take an umbrella". The sense of the overall construct being that the dependent part of the sentence, the first part, depends (hence the term 'dependent') on the conditional part, the second part, of the sentence.

In the case of the Second Amendment, the conditional is "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and the dependent is the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" part. Here it is again, in toto:

Second Amendment wrote:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In this sense, the second part (the bit about holding weapons) is conditional on the first part - meaning that it is to be interpreted in the light of the conditional. Or, alternatively, that it has no meaning when it is presented without the conditional (as it is by the NRA).

Hence the meaning above - that weapons can only be held for use in a state-level military unit. It's relatively easy to see the meaning once one has a grasp of the constituent grammar.

I hope and trust this clears up any confusion on the topic.

AbusesToilets

robindch wrote: »

Close, but not quite right. The sentence has a fairly straightforward meaning in English - there's a piece of text which gives a condition for some result at the start and then the dependent clause immediately following this. A simple example might be "A raincloud being visible, I decided to take an umbrella". In this, the conditional is "a raincloud being visible" and the dependent being "it's wise to take an umbrella". The sense of the overall construct being that the dependent part of the sentence, the first part, depends (hence the term 'dependent') on the conditional part, the second part, of the sentence.

In the case of the Second Amendment, the conditional is "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and the dependent is the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" part. Here it is again, in toto:In this sense, the second part (the bit about holding weapons) is conditional on the first part - meaning that it is to be interpreted in the light of the conditional. Or, alternatively, that it has no meaning when it is presented without the conditional (as it is by the NRA).

Hence the meaning above - that weapons can only be held for use in a state-level military unit. It's relatively easy to see the meaning once one has a grasp of the constituent grammar.

I hope and trust this clears up any confusion on the topic.

Well, you might hold to your interpretation, but that is not the one put forth by the Supreme Court, in numerous judgements to date.

You peruse back through this thread, Manic posted some links to their rulings on the matter. Main ones being that all military age males are considered part of a militia, by virtue of selective service I believe, and that the 2nd covers the right of an individual to possess firearms for means of defense.

robindch

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Well, you might hold to your interpretation, but that is not the one put forth by the Supreme Court, in numerous judgements to date.

Not in numerous judgments, but mainly in just two - District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, and McDonald v. Chicago in 2010. These two judgments the most important, and the most creative, reinterpretations of the Second Amendment. And the judgments were passed, not by a nine to zero cross-party majority which would lend the judgments broad credibility, but by the smallest margin possible - one vote - and strictly along party lines so as to discredit the institution of the US Supreme Court itself.

And neither is it "my interpretation", but the broad interpretation of the minority side. John Paul Stevens, who dissented in the two cases,
quotes with respect a comment by Warren Burger, a previous Chief Justice, which is worth noting:

Warren Burger wrote:

(...the Second Amendment...) "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

The comment is accurate, despite the activities and intense lobbying by the NRA and similarly odious organizations.

And regardless of the fraudulent interpretation, the judgments still don't prevent the various legislatures from controlling automatic and semi-automatic weapons - the kind of weapons which were used in, I believe, most or all of the mass murders to have taken place in the USA over the last few decades.

AbusesToilets

robindch wrote: »

Not in numerous judgments, but mainly in just two - District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, and McDonald v. Chicago in 2010. These two judgments the most important, and the most creative, reinterpretations of the Second Amendment. And the judgments were passed, not by a nine to zero cross-party majority which would lend the judgments broad credibility, but by the smallest margin possible - one vote - and strictly along party lines so as to discredit the institution of the US Supreme Court itself.

And neither is it "my interpretation", but the broad interpretation of the minority side. John Paul Stevens, who dissented in the two cases,
quotes with respect a comment by Warren Burger, a previous Chief Justice, which is worth noting:The comment is accurate, despite the activities and intense lobbying by the NRA and similarly odious organizations.

And regardless of the fraudulent interpretation, the judgments still don't prevent the various legislatures from controlling automatic and semi-automatic weapons - the kind of weapons which were used in, I believe, most or all of the mass murders to have taken place in the USA over the last few decades.

Creative in what way? That they affirm long stated beliefs in the right of an individual to possess personal arms, going back to the original drafting of the Constitution?

Interesting that you classify the majority decision as fraudulent, fairly imaginative and provocative language. Do you consider all split decisions to be fraudulent, to include the one covering the ACA?

As to your last point, you realise that the majority of States have gun laws whose interpretation mirrors that of the 2nd Amendment? Your use of emotive language doesn't remove the realities of what constitutes mass killings and the scenarios surrounding such events, or the fact that violence levels overall have been falling year on year for the last decade. Continue to peddle the usual fear mongering inaccuracies that the anti-gun side like to deploy.

InTheTrees

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Creative in what way? That they affirm long stated beliefs in the right of an individual to possess personal arms, going back to the original drafting of the Constitution?

Creative in that over time the attitudes of society change and the supreme court decisions usually reflect this.

A couple of conservative retirements and a democrat president appointing replacements could change everything quickly.

Appointing Supreme Court justices is a presidents most lasting legacy.

InTheTrees

AbusesToilets wrote: »

As to your last point, you realise that the majority of States have gun laws whose interpretation mirrors that of the 2nd Amendment?

All state constitutions mirror the US Constitution.

The US Constitution trumps them though. Thats why the various states opposed to gay marriage have no legal way to stop it after the SC decision.

Amerika

Will Obama be overextending his powers next month when he is expected to issue an executive order requiring everyone "in the business" of selling firearms must be licensed and perform background checks? An old study by the Harvard School of Public Health estimates that 40% of all gun transfers in the US occur without background checks. But the law offers an exemption to hobbyists, collectors and others who make “occasional sales” and are not considered to be “engaged in the business” of gun dealing. And much of that 40% of gun transfers are between family members. I wonder how his making possibly millions and millions of Americans, by use of a questionable loophole, into potential criminals will come off in the next election for Democrats?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Will Obama be overextending his powers next month when he is expected to issue an executive order requiring everyone "in the business" of selling firearms must be licensed and perform background checks? An old study by the Harvard School of Public Health estimates that 40% of all gun transfers in the US occur without background checks. But the law offers an exemption to hobbyists, collectors and others who make “occasional sales” and are not considered to be “engaged in the business” of gun dealing. And much of that 40% of gun transfers are between family members. I wonder how his making possibly millions and millions of Americans, by use of a questionable loophole, into potential criminals will come off in the next election for Democrats?

With the core democrat vote it'll "come off" quite nicely. With moderate swing voters, who knows.

Can you tell me exactly what you object to? Surely a background check on every fire arm sale benefits everyone, what's the downside?

Manach

On how the US SC interpret the text of the constitution, there now seems to be a willingness to move away from a strict and orignialist reading (from what I remember reading from the legal theorist Judge Bork) to that of more of an interpretive nature which leads to a whole host of discoverable rights. However there is still a large leap to disallow a heretofore allowed right, such as gun ownership, which has a long tradition within America. Thus to overturn this then an adjustment would be needed in their constitution to fully bring gun ownership under state control.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

With the core democrat vote it'll "come off" quite nicely. With moderate swing voters, who knows.

Can you tell me exactly what you object to? Surely a background check on every fire arm sale benefits everyone, what's the downside?

Strikes me as an attempt at political grandstanding without consideration to implementation, nothing unusual for the US political body.

AbusesToilets

Manach wrote: »

On how the US SC interpret the text of the constitution, there now seems to be a willingness to move away from a strict and orignialist reading (from what I remember reading from the legal theorist Judge Bork) to that of more of an interpretive nature which leads to a whole host of discoverable rights. However there is still a large leap to disallow a heretofore allowed right, such as gun ownership, which has a long tradition within America. Thus to overturn this then an adjustment would be needed in their constitution to fully bring gun ownership under state control.

Says a lot that there is such a continued effort on the part of the Administration and other Democrats to try and impose more restrictions on gun ownership, yet barely a peep when it comes to convicting those responsible for the economic woes of the last decade, or the ever increasing levels of private money in elections.

I know which issue strikes me as a greater threat to the health of the Republic.

K-9

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Strikes me as an attempt at political grandstanding without consideration to implementation, nothing unusual for the US political body.

So just dismiss the idea of background checks for everybody then?

It isn't going to to be perfect, no system is, but if it catches some it should be worth it?

AbusesToilets

K-9 wrote: »

So just dismiss the idea of background checks for everybody then?

It isn't going to to be perfect, no system is, but if it catches some it should be worth it?

I have no issue closing loop holes with respect to background checks. I do take issue with the constant efforts to infringe and diminish the rights of law abiding citizens, mostly conducted with deliberate obfuscation and fear mongering by those with an anti gun agenda.

K-9

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I have no issue closing loop holes with respect to background checks. I do take issue with the constant efforts to infringe and diminish the rights of law abiding citizens, mostly conducted with deliberate obfuscation and fear mongering by those with an anti gun agenda.

That just sounds like a default, knee jerk response. More background checks automatically means Government infringing my rights.

Yep it is your rights, and your right also infringes on others right to have a half way reasonable gun system in place. As JFK said, ask not....

If background checks inconvenience you a little, but result in maybe a couple of hundred less people getting shot well... No brainer for me.

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I have no issue closing loop holes with respect to background checks. I do take issue with the constant efforts to infringe and diminish the rights of law abiding citizens, mostly conducted with deliberate obfuscation and fear mongering by those with an anti gun agenda.

So why not say that in the first place instead of being deliberately obtuse?

You know what I'm sick of? Every effort to implement common sense gun control being dismissed as an effort to take guns from people.

AbusesToilets

K-9 wrote: »

That just sounds like a default, knee jerk response. More background checks automatically means Government infringing my rights.

Yep it is your rights, and your right also infringes on others right to have a half way reasonable gun system in place. As JFK said, ask not....

If background checks inconvenience you a little, but result in maybe a couple of hundred less people getting shot well... No brainer for me.

This from the same people who introduced another bill that would make ban pretty much every long gun available today going forward? Come off of it.

Back ground checks already exist, adjusting and closing some loop holes are not an issue. When the debate inevitably turns to such "common sense" measures such as magazine restriction, feature specific bans, barrel length restrictions, carry restrictions etc, then there are problems.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

So why not say that in the first place instead of being deliberately obtuse?

You know what I'm sick of? Every effort to implement common sense gun control being dismissed as an effort to take guns from people.

I've stated that many times, pages and pages ago, if you cared to look. I take issue with Obama bypassing the legislature to enact law, especially when there are legitimate questions relating to people criminalising themselves in ignorance.

K-9

When the legislature seems incapable of legislating, that's when a President should step in.

And I don't care if that's a Republican or Democrat.

AbusesToilets

K-9 wrote: »

When the legislature seems incapable of legislating, that's when a President should step in.

And I don't care if that's a Republican or Democrat.

I would disagree with that; the over reach of authorities by the Executive, covering multiple administrations, has set a dangerous precedent.

Manach

One of the key strengths and source of longetivity of the US system has been the doctrine of separation of powers. For one branch to be deemed incapable, would that be a line one would be willing to uphold even if the opposing political party was doing so, in the best interests of the country of course?

InTheTrees

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Says a lot that there is such a continued effort on the part of the Administration and other Democrats to try and impose more restrictions on gun ownership, yet barely a peep when it comes to convicting those responsible for the economic woes of the last decade, or the ever increasing levels of private money in elections.

Well you can thank The Republican majority in the Supreme Court for that.

AbusesToilets

Manach wrote: »

One of the key strengths and source of longetivity of the US system has been the doctrine of separation of powers. For one branch to be deemed incapable, would that be a line one would be willing to uphold even if the opposing political party was doing so, in the best interests of the country of course?

It would be a difficult situation to gauge, the status-quo right now is pretty desperate. Both parties are riven with private money and solely focused on stymieing the efforts of the other.

Can't see much changing unless there is a concerted effort to change the law against Citizens United et al. Term limits would be another useful measure to add to that.

Pie in the sky tbh

AbusesToilets

As an aside, is the President capable of issuing an Executive Order that would directly affect one of the other branches of government?

InTheTrees

AbusesToilets wrote: »

As an aside, is the President capable of issuing an Executive Order that would directly affect one of the other branches of government?

The Executive and The Leglislative branch can both make law.

The judicial branch makes sure those laws are constitutional.

AbusesToilets

InTheTrees wrote: »

The Executive and The Leglislative branch can both make law.

The judicial branch makes sure those laws are constitutional.

Well, that's been the issue. The Executive branch is meant to carry our and enforce the law. Presidents have gotten far to liberal in utilising Executive Orders and other acts, to circumvent Congress.

InTheTrees

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Well, that's been the issue. The Executive branch is meant to carry our and enforce the law. Presidents have gotten far to liberal in utilising Executive Orders and other acts, to circumvent Congress.

No, The Executive branch can make law a few different ways.

The constitutional checks are still in place.

What do you mean by "gotten far to liberal"?

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I've stated that many times, pages and pages ago, if you cared to look. I take issue with Obama bypassing the legislature to enact law, especially when there are legitimate questions relating to people criminalising themselves in ignorance.

This is a nonsense argument. People claim ignorance all the time and it's dismissed as a defence. Again firearms get a special dispensation.

And no I don't care to re read the entire thread to seek out your opinions.

Manach

InTheTrees wrote: »

The Executive and The Leglislative branch can both make law.

The judicial branch makes sure those laws are constitutional.

Legislative - yes, Executive - not as directly but still somewhat, Judicial: close enough. This branch inherited it via the case of Madison vs Marbury as well as de facto making laws by the use of precedence.

AbusesToilets

InTheTrees wrote: »

No, The Executive branch can make law a few different ways.

The constitutional checks are still in place.

What do you mean by "gotten far to liberal"?

The continuing creep in the Presidents ability to deploy military force would be one of the main ones. The previous kerfuffle over the Dream act is another example. The whole point of the separation of powers was to prevent the arise of a Tyrannical President, and while I certainly don't subscribe to the that narrative about Obama, as a continuing trend, it is worrisome.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

This is a nonsense argument. People claim ignorance all the time and it's dismissed as a defence. Again firearms get a special dispensation.

And no I don't care to re read the entire thread to seek out your opinions.

Hardly a nonsense argument. The US being the same country where people get years in jail for possessing trivial amounts of personal use narcotics. Forgive for being skeptical that someone running afoul of this law would get the benefit of the doubt from the legal system.

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Hardly a nonsense argument. The US being the same country where people get years in jail for possessing trivial amounts of personal use narcotics. Forgive for being skeptical that someone running afoul of this law would get the benefit of the doubt from the legal system.

No one is ignorant if the legality of narcotics, so I have no idea why you're bringing that up. I never said they should get the benefit of the doubt either. If they break the law, they should be prosecuted accordingly, ignorance is never a defence.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

No one is ignorant if the legality of narcotics, so I have no idea why you're bringing that up. I never said they should get the benefit of the doubt either. If they break the law, they should be prosecuted accordingly, ignorance is never a defence.

Seeing as the White House has yet to publish the details of the Order yet, one can't comment too much on the issue. From what has been stated so far, the main crux will be to change the definition of who constitutes a seller of firearms. Depending on where they aim to fix that number and definition, there is a possibility that someone could seek to sell off a collection and run afoul of the law in ignorance. Convicting someone of a felony for selling off family heirlooms seems a bit much to me.

InTheTrees

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Convicting someone of a felony for selling off family heirlooms seems a bit much to me.

Being able to sell handguns out of the trunk of your car to anyone who comes along with no paperwork or checks is a loophole that will probably be closed at some point.

The national rifle association will no doubt put a lot of energy into opposing any changes to the regulations.

Overheal

The president isn't going to enact any EO that hasn't first been legally vetted, and he has already said as much. Calling it illegal will this be an attempt at near futility.

Nixon for example attempted "executive impoundment" by attempting to limit how much money could go into programs he had a bias on. Congress couldn't overturn the order per se, but they passed the budget control act in response, legislating his action out of effect.

Manic Moran

robindch wrote: »

Close, but not quite right. The sentence has a fairly straightforward meaning in English - there's a piece of text which gives a condition for some result at the start and then the dependent clause immediately following this. A simple example might be "A raincloud being visible, I decided to take an umbrella". In this, the conditional is "a raincloud being visible" and the dependent being "it's wise to take an umbrella". The sense of the overall construct being that the dependent part of the sentence, the first part, depends (hence the term 'dependent') on the conditional part, the second part, of the sentence.

In the case of the Second Amendment, the conditional is "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and the dependent is the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" part. Here it is again, in toto:In this sense, the second part (the bit about holding weapons) is conditional on the first part - meaning that it is to be interpreted in the light of the conditional. Or, alternatively, that it has no meaning when it is presented without the conditional (as it is by the NRA).

Hence the meaning above - that weapons can only be held for use in a state-level military unit. It's relatively easy to see the meaning once one has a grasp of the constituent grammar.

I hope and trust this clears up any confusion on the topic.

It is worth pointing out that the term 'the people' is used five times in the Bill of Rights alone, and has been interpreted in every other case to be a right enforceable by an individual person. Assuming that consistency is important when reading a legal document (and I think that's a fair assumption), it seems unreasonable to work on the idea that 'the people' in 2nd A suddenly applies only to a collective body.

It is also worth noting that the one time that the Supreme Court addressed the 2A, indirectly, prior to Heller was Miller, in 1934. In that case, the question the court asked was 'is this a weapon suitable for military service?' as opposed to 'is this a right that the individual can enforce?'. Normal practice is to determine standing first, and then go into the details if the person can even bring the case forward.

Also indirectly, after Reconstruction, it was pointed out by the 19th Century courts that, yes, the Reconstruction amendments (13, 14, 15) would mean that black people have a right to own firearms because 2A would apply to thus apply to black people too. (A position not particularly approved of by Whitey, leading to interesting Jim Crow laws such as the CCW law still in force in California today)

So if one combines the emphasis on the militia clause with the consistency desired by law, then one comes to the interesting conclusion is that the right protects the ability of individual to own military grade weaponry, and that there is less of a direct right to own non-military weapons, such as small calibre pistols and whatnot. (There is an argument that there is an ancillary right to such weapons for training purposes. See Ezell in the 7th Circuit, which held that because there was a right to firearms, that there is a subsequent right to have places to practice). Although the most logical conclusion, it is also politically a bit of a hot potato. No wonder the courts have been very circumspect about the issue.

PopePalpatine

Looks like Obama is trying to grab onto that hot potato: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35211294

walshyn93

Overheal wrote: »

No it's the whole purpose of fact checking, because rhetoric has a habit of becoming "fact". That be used rhetoric and not fact earned him a mostly false ruling, opposed to completely false or pants on fire.

As for oil production both the US and OPEC have increased production, it's an economic war. OPEC is trying to dry up our domestic energy extraction so we will return to relying on more imports.

Where's thefact checkers checking Obama's rhetoric on x amount of people are killed with guns every year. When 65% of those are suicides. If someone commits suicide do we say "they were killed"? No. That implies someone else killed them. Rhetoric, unchecked by the partisan fact checkers.

eire4

walshyn93 wrote: »

Where's thefact checkers checking Obama's rhetoric on x amount of people are killed with guns every year. When 65% of those are suicides. If someone commits suicide do we say "they were killed"? No. That implies someone else killed them. Rhetoric, unchecked by the partisan fact checkers.

Yes many of the victims of gun violence in the US every year are from suicides. Some of which no doubt could have been prevented if background checks for instance were comprehensive.

walshyn93

eire4 wrote: »

Yes many of the victims of gun violence in the US every year are from suicides. Some of which no doubt could have been prevented if background checks for instance were comprehensive.

Prevent suicides with background checks for guns. Okay. Why do we have a similar suicide rate?

eire4

walshyn93 wrote: »

Prevent suicides with background checks for guns. Okay. Why do we have a similar suicide rate?

In Ireland since the turn of the century there have been approximately between 450 and 550 suicides in total per year according to the CSO. By far the most common methods used was hanging/Stangulation/Suffocation which accounted for 73% of those deaths followed by drowning 8% and poisoning 8%. No mention even of guns but clearly at most it is under 8%.




Now for instance in the US in 2011 according to the CDC there were 41,149 suicides in total of those 21,175 were by guns. So in short your question makes no sense because the suicide rate in Ireland by guns is nowhere even remotely close to what it is in the United States.

walshyn93

eire4 wrote: »

In Ireland since the turn of the century there have been approximately between 450 and 550 suicides in total per year according to the CSO. By far the most common methods used was hanging/Stangulation/Suffocation which accounted for 73% of those deaths followed by drowning 8% and poisoning 8%. No mention even of guns but clearly at most it is under 8%.




Now for instance in the US in 2011 according to the CDC there were 41,149 suicides in total of those 21,175 were by guns. So in short your question makes no sense because the suicide rate in Ireland by guns is nowhere even remotely close to what it is in the United States.

No it makes absolute sense because if someone doesn't have a gun they'll find another way to commit suicide. As evidenced by our suicide rate 11 to the USA's 12.1 (per 100,000). It's totally illogical to justify a gun ban based on suicide rates with a gun.

K-9

walshyn93 wrote: »

No it makes absolute sense because if someone doesn't have a gun they'll find another way to commit suicide. As evidenced by our suicide rate 11 to the USA's 12.1 (per 100,000). It's totally illogical to justify a gun ban based on suicide rates with a gun.

Problem is it's used by the pro gun side to take away from the death total. I'd agree to a large extent that if you take a gun away from a suicidal person they are probably going to find another method anyway, unless the US has an extremely high suicide rate by gun overall.

walshyn93

K-9 wrote: »

Problem is it's used by the pro gun side to take away from the death total. I'd agree to a large extent that if you take a gun away from a suicidal person they are probably going to find another method anyway, unless the US has an extremely high suicide rate by gun overall.

I would argue it's used by the anti-gun side to add to the total. The the deaths couldn't be prevented then it doesn't justify removing the gun from the equation and so shouldn't be used as an argument.

eire4

walshyn93 wrote: »

No it makes absolute sense because if someone doesn't have a gun they'll find another way to commit suicide. As evidenced by our suicide rate 11 to the USA's 12.1 (per 100,000). It's totally illogical to justify a gun ban based on suicide rates with a gun.

Yes some will find another way to commit suicide. But not all which means some peoples lives have been saved.


As for your last line. I just shake my head. It is amazing to me how many times I see the words 'gun ban' in these kind of debates when it was never used originally. I never said ban guns. The example I used in this instance was having full and comprehensive background checks. Which if done would I believe save some lives that would have been lost to suicide as well as to other forms of gun violence.