Guns and...guns

[owl]

Whoda thought? Availabiity increases likelihood of use: Guns at home equal higher suicide risk: study

 

This is why I'm glad that my dad wasn't a gun owner when I was a highly-depressed teenager. I can't tell you for sure whether I'd have actually harmed myself if the situation had been different, but having a gun at arm's length would certainly make a it a lot easier for the potentially-impulsive decision.

 

On a side note, it's funny, there was a study released a while ago that the NRA refutes. The study says that having a gun in the house makes it X times more likely that a family member will be killed. The NRA's rebuttal is "Well, a large portion of that percentage is suicides, so it doesn't count."

 

And why is it that a lot of hardcore gun owners insist that the Right to Bear Arms is a set-in-stone right to own an arsenal, when some of the same people are adamant about eliminating Separation of Church and State, as if that's flexible, but gun ownership isn't. Why are Gun advocates are patriotic and control advocates anti-American? Why are Bible-in-class creationists patriotic, but Separation advocates anti-American?

 

And on a similar note: D.C. appeals ruling overturning 30 year old city handgun ban

 

I am not anti-guns, per se. I don't want to take away people's guns. I wouldn't mind if they just stopped making handguns. I think that the whole gun rights movement is 90% industry fueled. In the same way that a Ford F150= freedom, so do guns. None of it is about practicality or need, it's just brand marketing, basically.

 

I've shot guns and my roommate owns guns, and I'm fine with it. But those big gun companies are up there with Phillip Morris and the hypochondriac drug companies.

 

Anyone have anything to add that isn't steeped in vitriol?

[cryptique]

I'm not a fan of guns, but I'm also not someone who thinks it's realistic (or even desirable) to ban them. That said, I'm constantly disappointed in the NRA, who seem to think that it's important to fight common sense attempts to lessen the danger of firearms: assault-weapon bans, registration, background checks, etc.

 

If the NRA were a legitimate, responsible advocate for safe gun ownership, I'd consider supporting the organization. However, so long as they maintain their paranoid "from my cold dead hand" rhetoric and extremist positions, they are just another part of the problem.

 

My two cents.

[owl]

If the NRA were a legitimate, responsible advocate for safe gun ownership, I'd consider supporting the organization.

 

Even though I said that my roommate is a gun owner and I'm fine with it, I do like to bust his chops about being an NRA member.

 

One of his arguments was that "They've been around forever." The fact is, though, the NRA is nothing like what the were in the earlier 1900s.

[plasticeyeball]

Whoda thought? Availabiity increases likelihood of use: Guns at home equal higher suicide risk: study

 

"Well, a large portion of that percentage is suicides, so it doesn't count."

 

 

that's classic.

 

i'm not a fan of guns in general. i am a fan of kids, mine in particular. i would prefer that they don't playfully shoot one another or one of their friends, even the ones i don't like. (well, maybe this one kid)

[owl]

There are plenty of gun-owning parents whose kids wouldn't even think of playing with a gun. My girlfriend is a perfect example. Her father is ex-Navy, a great guy, and owns numerous guns. She claims to have never even thought about it, even in her own depressed teenage years.

 

It's the other people who make up the sad statistic.

[caliber66]

The thing is, it seems that the study simply says that people are more successful at suicide, not that they attempt it more, in states where there is a greater percentage of gun ownership. Owning a gun doesn't make you any more likely to attempt suicide, just more likely to actually end your life when you try.

[owl]

It's a fine line, nonetheless, but you're right.

[ikol]

I don't own any guns, but since my apartment was broken in and my roommate was held at gunpoint by 4 thugs, I'm considering getting one. If that raises my suicide risk, so be it. And the 2nd Amendment doesn't say, "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed...unless guns are dangerous."

[owl]

By all means, get one. I'm not going to try to stop you.

 

Just remember that the thugs might just as easily still end up walking out of your apartment with a new gun and with you on the floor.

 

In my view, more handguns in the world are just more handguns to be stolen and used by more thugs.

[cryptique]

I don't own any guns, but since my apartment was broken in and my roommate was held at gunpoint by 4 thugs, I'm considering getting one. If that raises my suicide risk, so be it. And the 2nd Amendment doesn't say, "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed...unless guns are dangerous."

No, but it does say:

 

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.

 

...which many reasonable people interpret to mean that the right to keep and bear arms is tied to the existence of a "well regulated militia," and not a free pass to do whatever one likes with the things.

[JUDE]

I think that if people could get valium or codeine without a perscription and kept substantial quantities in their homes youd find the suicide sucess rates in those homes significantly higher than in homes that didn't have those drugs in them. Of course this really has nothing to do with the subject at hand so I'll just shut up.

[ikol]

No, but it does say:

 

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.

 

...which many reasonable people interpret to mean that the right to keep and bear arms is tied to the existence of a "well regulated militia," and not a free pass to do whatever one likes with the things.

 

But it also doesn't say that you only have that right if you're in a militia. Thus many reasonable people interpret it to mean that we have a right to bear arms that shall not be infringed, whether we're in a militia or not. And being able to bear arms isn't a free pass to do whatever you want with them.

[cryptique]

Well, as has been observed many times, reasonable people often disagree.

[MrRain422]

No, but it does say:

 

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.

 

...which many reasonable people interpret to mean that the right to keep and bear arms is tied to the existence of a "well regulated militia," and not a free pass to do whatever one likes with the things.

 

 

This is a key point. Whether or not the Second Amendment guarantees the right to own guns is completely dependent on what type of reading you give the Constitution. Interestingly, a lot of the people who frequently cite original intent when interpreting the Constitution absolutely ignore it when it comes to this particular issue.

 

When the Second Amendment was written, the prevailing belief at the time was that maintaining a standing army in times of peace was inherently corrupt. The thinking was that if we are not at war, then a standing military can only exist to control the people. The Second Amendment was written so that, when necessary, a militia could be organized quickly, since there would not typically be an armed military already ready to go.

 

Obviously things have changed a lot now -- we have a standing military at all times, and I think very few people nowadays would argue that we don't need to maintain a standing military in times of peace. So the original intent of this Amendment became outdated long ago.

 

Of course the Second Amendment still says what it says, and it certainly can be reasonably argued that it does provide a right to have guns regardless how irrelevent the original intent of the Amendment has become. But I do think that the original purpose of including the Second Amendment is an important part of the debate over gun policy, and I find it ironic that a lot of the right wingers who so often cite original intent in so many other areas of Constitutional Law find it unimportant for this issue.

[JUDE]

Obviously things have changed a lot now -- we have a standing military at all times, and I think very few people nowadays would argue that we don't need to maintain a standing military in times of peace. So the original intent of this Amendment became outdated long ago.

 

Standing military aside wasn't the point of a militia to allow the citizenry the opportunity to resist a tyrannical and oppressive government? I mean if we are going to bring up original intent.

 

See: A. Hamilton, Federalist Papers #28 & #29, J. Madison, Federalist Papers # 46.

[MrRain422]

Yes, that was the whole point.

[owl]

[quote name='JUDE

[JUDE]

In my mind, that's the only really plausible justification for gun ownership.

 

Anything now is just an attempt to defend one's self against other gun owners.

 

I agree, unfortunately as a gun owner, I come off as a "black helicopter" nut case if I explain my reason for owning a gun is for self-defense, especially the ability to defend myself from my government.

[owl]

Well, chalk yourself up there with one of my favorite nutcases, Ed Abbey.

[MrRain422]

Nowadays though, if the government decided to oppress you, how much is that gun going to help you?

[JUDE]

Nowadays though, if the government decided to oppress you, how much is that gun going to help you?

 

My couple of guns probably won't help all that much, but if you get enough people together, then you have a better chance. It's still more psychological than anything to me.

[Moe_Syzlak]

Yeah that worked well for the Branch Davidians and the Freemen, huh.

[owl]

Nowadays though, if the government decided to oppress you, how much is that gun going to help you?

 

Yeah, that's a point that I often make to my roommate. They do have nukes, after all, and a government that is corrupt enough will nuke its own people.

 

Despite this, if I were to ever own a gun (even though I won't), it would be for the same reason as Jude.

 

I do think it's funny how some people will amass great arsenals, as if they'd somehow be able to fire them all at once in the face of government oppression. How many physical arms (as in shoulders, elbows, hands, trigger fingers) do you think that you have?

[Analogman]

I'm not into guns - but I am also not into someone taking my stuff or somehow harming me. There have been several murders here where I live in the past couple of years - many of them committed by college students with knifes - oddly enough.

[j4lackey]

If all the fucking idiots that......

Anyone have anything to add that isn't steeped in vitriol?

Oh... never mind.