It's exactly what you said. You said suicide is a right. Are you trying to suggest that suicide is only right if you use a gun?

No I really didn’t.

You’re misrepresenting what I said.

You need to learn the difference between a statement and part of a statement.

I clearly said you have the right to use a gun however you please as long as you’re not hurting any other humans.

Do you still think that’s exactly what I said?



Originally Posted by PointlessWords View Post

Well anything you do to infringe upon my right to kill myself

Since this is tying you up, here's what you said:

Where does it state you have the right to kill yourself with a gun? It's certainly not in the 2A and it certainly doesn't have to do with Henry saying, "Give me liberty or give me death."

I wasn't. In today's environment, I can't think of any policy that would meaningfully reduce the number of guns in the United States, even over a multi-decade period, that has a reasonable chance of being enacted.

I think your buddies are not responsible enough to own guns, and it makes me very suspicious that you aren't either.

Even if the specific purpose for which the weapon was designed was hurting humans?

Yea they prob aren’t.

Stop making imaginary infringements and asking me if they are ok

You're the one who imagined it, I was just asking for clarification.

Seriously though, I don't know how it is possible to "use" something designed for killing people other than by attempting to kill people with it.

The only thing I can think of is for deterrence, and it's tough for me to imagine the circumstances by which a large semi-automatic rifle would be visible enough to serve as a good deterrent for anything. I guess carrying one around town all the time could convince local residents not to break into your house, but that would only be effective for those in communities small enough that most of the local criminals would have seen you carrying it.

A person commiting suicide isn’t killing people

I agree, but I have no idea how this is supposed to apply to what I was talking about, semi-automatic rifles designed for killing as many people as possible.

Not many people use those for suicide; if they do, it's certainly overkill.

Ba-dum-bum!

Here are a few examples of some recent gun violence:


A convenience store owner in S.C. shot a 14 year old boy in the back who he wrongly accused of stealing

In Mo. a homeowner shot a 16 year old boy who rang the wrong doorbell

in NY a 20 year old was shot as she and her friends turned into the wrong driveway

and in Texas 2 cheerleaders were shot after one tried to get into the wrong car in a dark parking lot


https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/30/u...-shooting.html

.

If one were inclined to list examples of gun violence that fit the NYTimes preferred narrative AND those that dont, what would you estimate the ratio be in favor of those not fitting the narrative?

100:1 ??
200:1 ??

Maybe you can get us started by clarifying what you believe the NYT's "preferred narrative" is and whether these sorts of article fit the "preferred narrative" in your opinion.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/08/n...jose-alba.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/11/n...ngs-bronx.html

Also, for the purpose of determining the NYT's "preferred narrative", should we assume that all instances of gun violence are, in some objective sense, equally newsworthy (or not newsworthy)?

People killing one another in a country of 400 million is normal. Don’t know why we waste time on these issues.


There’s “only” been about 300 kids killed in the targeted mass shooting attacks. I see those as a real concern while the rest is people complaining about when it rains.

At some rate of killing, this of course is true. At any conceivable rate of killing, this of course is not true.

Also, your views on gun violence are, to put it charitably, highly idiosyncratic, as evidenced by your statement earlier in this thread that you would do nothing to prevent a mentally ill friend from shooting himself.

Someone taught Kelhus a long time ago that you can just say "narrative" over and over and it sounds ominous.

Agreed, there should be zero doubt left in anyone's mind that guns are just like shovels, milk, ball point pens and cars in that they can be used to intentionally or unintentionally kill someone.

Why are you concerned about a young person murdered in a building that is currently being utilized to educate people and not young people outside or in building designed to do something other than educate people?

On a 1-10 scale on how much you care for a dead young person where 10 is in a kid dying in school and 1 is a kid catching a stray while on his own front porch A) where does a kid who is playing in the parking lot of a school sit, B) what about a kid who is at a music shop that has guitar lessons, but the kid is just there to pick up a few guitar picks and not actually learn to play and finally C) what about a kid who is an abandoned school that hasn't been in use for over 15 years?

The reason I ask is because I think you are silly for caring about a kid more or less based on what type of building he is in when murdered.

.

as I indicated in my earlier post in 2021 counting up suicides and murders it all worked out to be just under 130 per day are killed by a gun on average

the same post indicated the rate of increase since 1968 in both suicides and murders was well over 200% while the population only increased by about 65%

so, then, if in 15 years if there is a big increase - which seems fairly likely - and 230 per day are killed by guns -

is that going to be just fine for all of the gun lovers_______?

my guess is yes - that will be just fine - no problem at all - carry on

.

I don't understand why Pointless Words cares about A, B, or C. His previous posts would imply that A, B, and C are inevitable in a population of 400 million people (which is true) and he has never seemed to care often other types of gun violence do or do not occur (which is mystifying).

People have different expectations of safety from a school than from an abandoned building, sorry to rock your world like this.

Yeah, and it isn't just a matter of expectations. There is more social utility associated with keeping schools safe than there is with keeping abandoned buildings safe.

I dont care about a kid more or less where they are murdered, I am talking about how groups of people are affected, and I think that murders are a normal part of a barbaric warrior society, which we live in, while I think that children who are being targeted as schools is not a normal part of that life and many things should be done to stop it

I do also think hollywood is a large part of all murders, and I think the way to fix that is to change the profit motives for hollywood. this may end up as censorship which I cannot get behind

I also want to note that in my world, these deaths from having a barbaric warrior society are the costs that we pay so that we don't get invaded and lose hundreds of thousands of civilian lives.

I am sure that Ukrainians would rather live in a barbaric warrior society w murders and be able to defend themselves from russia rather than living in a non barbaric society which allowed russia to invade and now hundreds of thousands of civilians have or will die.

I would in turn question why you think lowering a countries ability to defend itself from invasion is worth saving people from getting murdered


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b2288037.html

if every household had 4 AT4s (anti tank weapon) and 2 240b's (light machine guns) and a bunch of ammo (similar to switzerland) then this would never have happened

Switzerland has a lower per capita ownership. They are basically allowed one gun. The good thing is that they have a history in shooting and a lot of teenagers participate in shooting events, which I think is a good thing. They aren't the wild west type when it comes to guns.

Given their proximity to Russia, do you think they should update this?