Spike in gun deaths after BG checks eliminated

[smooth]

alright, whatever. this is a pointless discussion

you know, it's fine if you were one of my students and you read one of my books or journal articles and said you hold a different opinion about the topic. but if you came up to me and took my own data and my own assessments about the data and said I'm going to interpret your sentences in the way I want to, that would just be silly.

similarly, when I take the time out of my schedule to try and explain things to you more clearly and you simply wave your hand and say well you're going to ignore the sentences before and after the one you like, and rip his statement out of context, and now apparently because you don't like one particular site you're just going to dismiss an entire interview of the guy you are trying to base your argument on, it's beyond the pale.

if that's the kind of cherry picking you want to do then have at it. it's the same thing as hearing someone say, "I'm going to drive into town and buy a candy bar" and you answering, "what do you need a crow bar for?" and he says, "no a candy bar." and you just keep arguing that since he said "bar" in his sentence then you can interpret whatever kind of "bar" that is according to your opinion. it's a totally senseless position to take. hopefully other people reading this can understand why that's senseless but whatever have fun.

[DER E30]

Who cares about suicides?

That's exactly what I want to know...What does it have to do with gun control, why do we blame the guns? They are inanimate objects not capable of harm by themselves!


If somebody REALLY wants to kill themselves, won't they do it whatever way is easiest???

[smooth]

If somebody REALLY wants to kill themselves, won't they do it whatever way is easiest???

for some, but not for the bulk of people

[DER E30]

for some, but not for the bulk of people

What's that supposed to mean?


If I wanted to kill myself I could do it in just a few mins, without a gun... So why is, "guns can be used in suicide man!" even an argument?

[accident]

If I wanted to kill myself I could do it in just a few mins, without a gun... So why is, "guns can be used in suicide man!" even an argument?

One could argue the same about murder...

[smooth]

What's that supposed to mean?


If I wanted to kill myself I could do it in just a few mins, without a gun... So why is, "guns can be used in suicide man!" even an argument?

that's just what the research shows. some people feel like killing themselves and would only do it with a gun. once they get stopped from obtaining a gun they also don't follow through with killing themselves.

you can kill yourself in a matter of seconds with a gun, btw, not minutes
and if you ever have the misfortune of counseling suicidal people you'd realize how preposterous your position is in terms of how simple you think it is to commit suicide

[einhander]

Liberty blah blah

I have no idea what your post means.

[The Dark Side of Will]

similarly, when I take the time out of my schedule to try and explain things to you more clearly and you simply wave your hand and say well you're going to ignore the sentences before and after the one you like, and rip his statement out of context, and now apparently because you don't like one particular site you're just going to dismiss an entire interview of the guy you are trying to base your argument on, it's beyond the pale.

I think you're confusing a multitude of different articles you've read about/by Papachristos with the ONE I posted. I haven't taken anything out of context.

[The Dark Side of Will]

If somebody REALLY wants to kill themselves, won't they do it whatever way is easiest???

That's what I used to think, but that's not what the data shows.

Some people come to the decision to kill themselves, but if they can't get the job done quick enough, rethink and decide otherwise. Waiting periods apparently keep some number of those individuals from doing the deed.

But there are also some veteran PTSD sufferers who only call the suicide help hotline to make sure that their families know where to find their bodies. You can't stop those guys.

[The Dark Side of Will]

I have no idea what your post means.

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law

liberty is the ability to exercise a right

No person shall have their rights restricted [by the government] without due process of law.

2nd amendment rights are rights and, properly, require due process (the person being restricted must have their day in a court of law) for the government to restrict.

Unfortunately, administrative abuses seem to trump due process these days.

[einhander]

The relationship between gun ownership and the due process clause is to be found in the 14th Amendment.

Besides, CC laws/restrictions should be dealt with by a rational basis test.

[Farbin Kaiber]

So, I thought I'd quote bump my original comment and one of someone saying I was off my rocker with crazy hypothetical conspiracy ideas that would never happen, so I'll let you re-read the comments and here is the 'I-told-you-so' linky...

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/7th-circuit-upholds-warrantless-entry-seizure-of-gun-rights-activist-b99269120z1-259087731.html

Because of the potential for bureaucratic abuses and the ability for people to be denied a right due to unrelated, or unfounded charges.

Guy does what he is supposed to, gets his Obamacare once he gets through the website, starts seeing his Dr. and at a routine checkup, mentions to the Dr. he has been 'bummed' out due to his wife losing her job, and not getting a raise at work because of cuts his boss made due to rising healthcare costs, so the Dr. makes a note, and suggests a prescription for Xanax. Guy takes a few scheduled doses and decides he doesn't feel right and discontinues use.

Eleven months later, his brother and best friend plan a hunting trip, so Guy goes down to local FFL/Gun Shop to pick up a new .270 rifle, and while he is there, he sees an XD(M) in 45ACP he saw in a magazine sitting in the DR. office waiting room at the end of last year, and decides to buy it as well. So, he fills out the paperwork, and waits for the background check. Seven days later, he gets a letter, and a call from the Gun Shop, that he has been declined by the FBI/DHS for his firearm purchase because of a red flag in the system due to a medical diagnosis of Pharmaceutically treated Clinical Depression, so his gun ownership rights have been revoked, and to call his County Sheriff to schedule a pick up of all other registered and unregistered firearms stored at his physical address.

And that is one way they are a punishment.

So simply because something has the potential for abuse means that it is inherently a punishment? That's really, really dumb. Like REALLY dumb. I hope you're not using that as a serious argument in this discussion.



Again, you can make up all the crazy stories and fictitious scenarios you want, it doesn't make any of it true or answer any legitimate questions. Your answer is factualy equivalent to:

[The Dark Side of Will]

Because of the potential for bureaucratic abuses and the ability for people to be denied a right due to unrelated, or unfounded charges.

Guy does what he is supposed to, gets his Obamacare once he gets through the website, starts seeing his Dr. and at a routine checkup, mentions to the Dr. he has been 'bummed' out due to his wife losing her job, and not getting a raise at work because of cuts his boss made due to rising healthcare costs, so the Dr. makes a note, and suggests a prescription for Xanax. Guy takes a few scheduled doses and decides he doesn't feel right and discontinues use.

Eleven months later, his brother and best friend plan a hunting trip, so Guy goes down to local FFL/Gun Shop to pick up a new .270 rifle, and while he is there, he sees an XD(M) in 45ACP he saw in a magazine sitting in the DR. office waiting room at the end of last year, and decides to buy it as well. So, he fills out the paperwork, and waits for the background check. Seven days later, he gets a letter, and a call from the Gun Shop, that he has been declined by the FBI/DHS for his firearm purchase because of a red flag in the system due to a medical diagnosis of Pharmaceutically treated Clinical Depression, so his gun ownership rights have been revoked, and to call his County Sheriff to schedule a pick up of all other registered and unregistered firearms stored at his physical address.

And that is one way they are a punishment.

Beautiful example of rights being restricted without due process.

Also, DiFi has publicly made the crack-head comment that she thinks all returning veterans are suffering from PSD and none should be allowed to own weapons. That's in competition with McCain's proposal to deny due process to those accused of terrorism for Tyrant of the Year award.

[The Dark Side of Will]

The relationship between gun ownership and the due process clause is to be found in the 14th Amendment.

Besides, CC laws/restrictions should be dealt with by a rational basis test.

Re: 14th: Kindly elaborate.

As rational as San Diego county's basis recently overturned by the 9th Circuit?
Keeping and bearing really actually is a right. That's why the Bill of Rights calls it a right. Therefore, having the right is the default and restriction needs to be based on due process.

I do very much advocate training and instruction in the handling, use and judgement to use firearms. Just like you have to learn how to speak before using your freedom of speech, you should learn about the use of a gun before you exercise your right to keep and bear.
I feel the same way about driving... it's a right, but it needs instruction to practice effectively.

[mrsleeve]

So, I thought I'd quote bump my original comment and one of someone saying I was off my rocker with crazy hypothetical conspiracy ideas that would never happen, so I'll let you re-read the comments and here is the 'I-told-you-so' linky...


http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwauk...259087731.html

funny thing how the 7th upheld this, I would have expected this out of the 9th. Huh who would have called this.

In related news the DOJ and its "operation choke point" is trying to get banks to dump un-favorable business like gun makers and sellers, porn industry, and bong retailers that use a a bank to process their payments. This is a formalization of BoA famously dropping McMillan while in good standing with no evidence of wrong doing in 2004.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/18/targeted-gun-sellers-say-high-risk-label-from-feds/