Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Is suicide an accident or gun violence?
Guns are
A protected Right, just like speech or religion…..drugs are not.
But I think you can extend the metaphor.
You know, like "free speech" still has limitations on it.
Well, yes and no. There was no actual "right" to bear arms as such, as a right presupposes an element of choice. There was no choice whether or not to have/carry weapons; it was a legal requirement in Anglo-Saxon Britain. Incidentally, murder rates were dramatically higher in those days, possibly as a result of all those weapons being readily available.History disagrees with you.
Only when they are given the opportunity by careless "victims" who leave doors unlocked, windows open and/or have no security measures in place.Yeah because criminals never break in right?
Maybe in the USA, but as I said most modern houses in the UK aren't easy to break into or force, many more have cameras and alarms which deter all but the most professional theives, and in those cases, they only target those who have something worth taking the risk to steal from.Windows are easy to break, doors can be breached.
More drivel. Read the article, it contains all the "explanation" necessary. Suicide Rate by Country 2022Wrong.....you still can't explain, and your anti-gun buddies can't explain, how it is that South Korea, Japan, and China have higher suicide rates than we do....you cherry picked the only year Japan had a higher suicide rate than we did.....the only year.......and didn't address South Korea, or China....or any of the dozen or so European countries and Canada that had higher suicide rates than we did.....
If that's true, there's no-one more fanatical than a "convert".No....Kleck was anti-gun when he did his research, he states this when interviewed....Lott was agnostic on guns but leaned toward more gun laws not less......so you don't know what you are talking about........
Interesting. Do you have a cite for it being a legal requirement back then?Well, yes and no. There was no actual "right" to bear arms as such, as a right presupposes an element of choice. There was no choice whether or not to have/carry weapons; it was a legal requirement in Anglo-Saxon Britain. Incidentally, murder rates were dramatically higher in those days, possibly as a result of all those weapons being readily available.
Other weapons existed thousands of years ago. The right to keep and bear arms predates guns.Now it's "arms," but the topic is about "guns," i.e. "firearms" which didn't exist "thousands of years ago."
The two terms are interchangeable.Now it's "leftists" while before it was "progressives."
That is incorrect. History and reality focus on the truth, and most of what you just said is untrue.In any case, history and reality now have no choice but to declare you a name calling, shameless gasbag, trolling and gaslighting people here purely for the fun and profit of the weapons industry at the expense people's lives and limbs. Worse than any gun, you natter away about philosophical "freedom" in the face children's genuine fear of attending classes thanks to all the psychos being encouraged to shoot them daily by people like you.
If anything is wrong, it'll be the studies that are exclusively found in gun nut pamphletsWell obviously in places with lots of guns, massacres will be committed using guns. And in places with few guns, massacres will be committed without guns.
I'm skeptical. I've seen reliable studies showing that magazine size restrictions make no difference.
Obviously someone has to be wrong. It remains to be seen who it is.
That's because they don't care about saving lives and only want to violate people's civil liberties.
Current restrictions on assault weapons have been sufficient to prevent criminal misuse for 90 years now. There is no justification for any such ban.
I endorse disbanding the American Psychiatric Association as a way to curb civil liberties violations in the US.
REally?Only when they are given the opportunity by careless "victims" who leave doors unlocked, windows open and/or have no security measures in place.
Maybe in the USA, but as I said most modern houses in the UK aren't easy to break into or force, many more have cameras and alarms which deter all but the most professional theives, and in those cases, they only target those who have something worth taking the risk to steal from.
Just trying to figure out if their deaths are acceptable to you too.I honestly do NOT want to even get a glimpse of what you might think about this topic. Your point is becoming so tormented as to be nearly meaningless and since I don't respect you I can't stand the thought of hearing what you think about "suicide".
I’d say your obsession with another country’s gun laws would qualify you as a gun nut.If anything is wrong, it'll be the studies that are exclusively found in gun nut pamphlets
As long as it doesn’t limit the technology of the day that any light infantry ought to have which today is semiautomatic rifles, pistols and shotguns with high capacity magazines.But I think you can extend the metaphor.
You know, like "free speech" still has limitations on it.
Wow, you've now understood the premise so well you felt compelled to repeat it back to me! Great, now keep going.. Get to the point.. {hint: provided already as well}Other weapons existed thousands of years ago. The right to keep and bear arms predates guns.
More drivel. Read the article, it contains all the "explanation" necessary. Suicide Rate by Country 2022
If that's true, there's no-one more fanatical than a "convert".
Well, yes and no. There was no actual "right" to bear arms as such, as a right presupposes an element of choice. There was no choice whether or not to have/carry weapons; it was a legal requirement in Anglo-Saxon Britain. Incidentally, murder rates were dramatically higher in those days, possibly as a result of all those weapons being readily available.
Only when they are given the opportunity by careless "victims" who leave doors unlocked, windows open and/or have no security measures in place.
Maybe in the USA, but as I said most modern houses in the UK aren't easy to break into or force, many more have cameras and alarms which deter all but the most professional theives, and in those cases, they only target those who have something worth taking the risk to steal from.
Only when they are given the opportunity by careless "victims" who leave doors unlocked, windows open and/or have no security measures in place.
Maybe in the USA, but as I said most modern houses in the UK aren't easy to break into or force, many more have cameras and alarms which deter all but the most professional theives, and in those cases, they only target those who have something worth taking the risk to steal from.
