As a lawful citizen and gun owner, I should not be lumped in or even have stats on folks like me associated with someone who has mental problems and is wanting to kill themselves.
Just because you don't have mental problems now doesn't mean you won't have them at some point in the future, or that someone in your household won't. And the urge to kill oneself is not a constant urge. It passes.
Jumping off a bridge is quick and easy too...should we be worried about common sense bridge laws when that becomes popular?
It takes time to get to a bridge, get out of your car, and climb the barrier (assuming you can), and there are likely to be people on that bridge who will try to stop you. I live somewhere where the is a bridge known for being a suicide bridge. The authorities have taken steps to make it harder to use.
A gun is just a tool like any other to a person wanting to commit suicide. It isn't special and should not be lumped in with gun deaths, a statistic that is bandied about as a reason to remove the right of the majority of gun owners in the US.
It absolutely should be included with gun deaths, just like accidental discharge. 3/4s of all suicide attempts are by women. 3/4s of all successful suicides are by men. The reason for the difference is that men use guns and women don't. Those who don't use guns are far more likely to fail in their attempt and never try again.
You know, just like the 1st Amendment says that nobody in government can prevent you from speaking, assembling, etc. The Bill of Rights doesn't establish some standard for your right to speak, or your right to defend yourself. It anticipates people like you with a totalitarian mindset looking to use government power to control others, and they identified some potential hot spots (speech, self defense, privacy, etc) that merited specific language in the country's charter.
And yet we still have laws against libel, slander, and inciting riots, and we allow cities and states to define "free speech zones" and protest routes. Inalienable rights are not unlimited rights.
I'm sure you can point to court rulings that support your assertion that "every single law, regulation, etc. that interferes with US citizens keeping and bearing firearms is unconstitutional."
While I agree that an amendment is in order, for most of the gun control options that are being put forward don't actually require it. For example, background checks are already allowed, so expanding them to private sales and gun shows would also be allowed. An assault rifle ban was on the books for a decade and never overturned. Allowing the CDC to study gun violence would require only an act of congress, as it was only banned by an act of congress. Silencers (suppressors) are banned already, so banning bump stocks and high-capacity magazines would be allowed.
...both through homicide and suicide and we want to do something about this.
Take suicides out of the numbers...if someone wants to 'off' themselves, they'll find a way.
That's not actually true. Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem, and the urge often passes as quickly as it comes. A gun makes it quick and easy, so it's a method that allows a person to strike while the iron is hot. Jumping off of something high, or into traffic, or taking pills, etc all take a lot of time and effort, which gives the person time to change their mind.
People who use guns oppose gun control, and people who don't use them favor gun control (generally speaking).
That's not entirely true, and not just because of exceptions to the generalization. A majority of gun owners do actually support several gun control measures. Specifically, 89% favor preventing people with mental health issues from buying guns, 77% favor requiring background checks on private sales and at gun shows, 82% favor banning people on the no-fly list from buying guns, and 54% favor creating a federal database for tracking gun sales. Additionally, significant minorities favor banning assault-style weapons (48%) and high-capacity magazines (44%).
Good point. But enough half measures. Let's remove the rules against theft, burglary, assault, rape, murder, fraud, and graft while we're at it. And investigate the corrupt people who put those rules in place!
Frankenstein did everything he could to keep his monster from killing people. That doesn't change the fact that he created the monster in the first place.
I guess you could blame the establishment Dems for being terrible at selling the benefits of stability, expertise, and continuity, and the establishment GOP for fanning the flames of idiocy for short term political benefit.
You spell "Obama stuck to the agreement that Bush signed with the Iraqi government, and couldn't have gone back on it anyway because they wanted us out" funny.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
It's almost as though the deal that Vermont signed included the requirements that Comcast expand its network, and now they're trying to get out of that requirement but maintain the sweetheart portion of the deal.
This is relevant, given that Vermont is a very rural state (one city over 30,000 people) with a very distributed population and topography that makes wireless coverage challenging.
Exactly - and we're not talking about a one-off design flaw. This was a very common bridge design at the time it was built, and there are many out there just like it.
While I agree in principle, our electoral system is set up such that it's nearly impossible for someone not belonging to one of the two evil parties to win an election. We need electoral reform like ranked choice ballots, or proportional representation if that's ever going to happen. Otherwise, we're stuck with the choice of voting for the lesser evil, or enabling the greater evil.
That's $400 million in free money to use fixing potholes or whatever the city wants to do with it.
The city only gets 5% of the naming rights (approximately 900K/year), despite fully owning the stadium. And while that that money is nothing to sneeze at, it is earmarked to pay down the debt taken on to build the stadium in the first place, and so is not "free money" and will not be used to fix potholes or anything else of direct benefit to the people of the Metroplex.
Chantilly isn't going to buy Dulles. Arlington isn't going to buy National. Virginia isn't going to buy either. Why does the administration want to sell in the first place? What advantage is there to the public to sell off these public assets?
Slashdot Mirror
The guy at the 7-eleven who rings up your beer purchase isn't licensed.
Is that so? Even in states where the cashier isn't required to be licensed, the store itself is.
As a lawful citizen and gun owner, I should not be lumped in or even have stats on folks like me associated with someone who has mental problems and is wanting to kill themselves.
Just because you don't have mental problems now doesn't mean you won't have them at some point in the future, or that someone in your household won't. And the urge to kill oneself is not a constant urge. It passes.
Jumping off a bridge is quick and easy too...should we be worried about common sense bridge laws when that becomes popular?
It takes time to get to a bridge, get out of your car, and climb the barrier (assuming you can), and there are likely to be people on that bridge who will try to stop you. I live somewhere where the is a bridge known for being a suicide bridge. The authorities have taken steps to make it harder to use.
A gun is just a tool like any other to a person wanting to commit suicide. It isn't special and should not be lumped in with gun deaths, a statistic that is bandied about as a reason to remove the right of the majority of gun owners in the US.
It absolutely should be included with gun deaths, just like accidental discharge. 3/4s of all suicide attempts are by women. 3/4s of all successful suicides are by men. The reason for the difference is that men use guns and women don't. Those who don't use guns are far more likely to fail in their attempt and never try again.
You know, just like the 1st Amendment says that nobody in government can prevent you from speaking, assembling, etc. The Bill of Rights doesn't establish some standard for your right to speak, or your right to defend yourself. It anticipates people like you with a totalitarian mindset looking to use government power to control others, and they identified some potential hot spots (speech, self defense, privacy, etc) that merited specific language in the country's charter.
And yet we still have laws against libel, slander, and inciting riots, and we allow cities and states to define "free speech zones" and protest routes. Inalienable rights are not unlimited rights.
I'm sure you can point to court rulings that support your assertion that "every single law, regulation, etc. that interferes with US citizens keeping and bearing firearms is unconstitutional."
While I agree that an amendment is in order, for most of the gun control options that are being put forward don't actually require it. For example, background checks are already allowed, so expanding them to private sales and gun shows would also be allowed. An assault rifle ban was on the books for a decade and never overturned. Allowing the CDC to study gun violence would require only an act of congress, as it was only banned by an act of congress. Silencers (suppressors) are banned already, so banning bump stocks and high-capacity magazines would be allowed.
You do realize that you're agreeing with him, and reinforcing his point, right?
Take suicides out of the numbers...if someone wants to 'off' themselves, they'll find a way.
That's not actually true. Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem, and the urge often passes as quickly as it comes. A gun makes it quick and easy, so it's a method that allows a person to strike while the iron is hot. Jumping off of something high, or into traffic, or taking pills, etc all take a lot of time and effort, which gives the person time to change their mind.
People who use guns oppose gun control, and people who don't use them favor gun control (generally speaking).
That's not entirely true, and not just because of exceptions to the generalization. A majority of gun owners do actually support several gun control measures. Specifically, 89% favor preventing people with mental health issues from buying guns, 77% favor requiring background checks on private sales and at gun shows, 82% favor banning people on the no-fly list from buying guns, and 54% favor creating a federal database for tracking gun sales. Additionally, significant minorities favor banning assault-style weapons (48%) and high-capacity magazines (44%).
Absolutely! Just look at the atrocities committed by the governments of places like Australia and Canada!
Good point. But enough half measures. Let's remove the rules against theft, burglary, assault, rape, murder, fraud, and graft while we're at it. And investigate the corrupt people who put those rules in place!
A criminal breaks the law to get what he wants. A politician makes the law to get what he wants.
Outside of Mattis, not a one.
+1 Insightful
Frankenstein did everything he could to keep his monster from killing people. That doesn't change the fact that he created the monster in the first place.
But the ones who do push up property prices for everyone, not just those making a ton.
I guess you could blame the establishment Dems for being terrible at selling the benefits of stability, expertise, and continuity, and the establishment GOP for fanning the flames of idiocy for short term political benefit.
You spell "Obama stuck to the agreement that Bush signed with the Iraqi government, and couldn't have gone back on it anyway because they wanted us out" funny.
Why is Comcast the only provider being required to do this?
Because they signed a contract obliging them to do so?
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
It's almost as though the deal that Vermont signed included the requirements that Comcast expand its network, and now they're trying to get out of that requirement but maintain the sweetheart portion of the deal.
Rural service, well, that's still a problem.
This is relevant, given that Vermont is a very rural state (one city over 30,000 people) with a very distributed population and topography that makes wireless coverage challenging.
Exactly - and we're not talking about a one-off design flaw. This was a very common bridge design at the time it was built, and there are many out there just like it.
While I agree in principle, our electoral system is set up such that it's nearly impossible for someone not belonging to one of the two evil parties to win an election. We need electoral reform like ranked choice ballots, or proportional representation if that's ever going to happen. Otherwise, we're stuck with the choice of voting for the lesser evil, or enabling the greater evil.
That's $400 million in free money to use fixing potholes or whatever the city wants to do with it.
The city only gets 5% of the naming rights (approximately 900K/year), despite fully owning the stadium. And while that that money is nothing to sneeze at, it is earmarked to pay down the debt taken on to build the stadium in the first place, and so is not "free money" and will not be used to fix potholes or anything else of direct benefit to the people of the Metroplex.
Chantilly isn't going to buy Dulles. Arlington isn't going to buy National. Virginia isn't going to buy either. Why does the administration want to sell in the first place? What advantage is there to the public to sell off these public assets?