@ster @lerk@comm.network Why would I want to include suicide, that is a voluntary choice. If someone wants to kill themselves as sad as it might be that is their right.

@freemo @ster @lerk People don't kill themselves because they're sad. Depression is an actual mental illness which has proven and well known cures. Providing easy access to guns significantly increases the risk of someone with depression killing themselves, if that individual does not have access to a gun they are much more likely to seek help and make a full recovery.

@iamduck @ster @lerk@comm.network Sounds like the solution there is better healthcare so those cures are applied. The argument "we must remove all ways someone can kill themselves just in case someone ever wants to" is a poor one to me, killing yourself is far too easy to accomplish with or without a gun.

@freemo
No. If you see someone about to commit suicide, you stop them. If someone can survive depression they can live a normal life. People have ups and downs and giving them guns tempts them to end it.
@lerk

@ster @lerk@comm.network of course, if someone is about to commit suicide you try to convince them not to. By all means, do that. A suicidal person may choose to jump from a tall building too, but we dont consider making tall buildings illegal a viable solution to that either.

@freemo
Access to the top of buildings is prevented. Windows do not open enough for someone to climb out.

Most people with depression do not plan for weeks to kill themselves. They have a rough time, and feel shit, and choose to end it. Guns are easy. Tall buildings aren't. The statistics are clear. Guns mean more suicide.
@lerk

@ster @lerk@comm.network All of which are horrific solutions. Everyone in the world shouldnt be prevented from being able to open their windows just because someone somewhere might be suicidal.

@freemo
You wouldn't let a random suicidal person into your house anyway. Tall buildings aren't as accessible as guns. The comparison is useless.
@lerk

@freemo @ster @lerk We put up safety barriers to discourage it. In some cases nets as well. It is difficult with tall buildings to avoid completely, but with guns we do have the ability to control them, so there's no reason not to. Also, suicidal people don't have a choice, they don't choose to commit suicide, they see no other option in front of them.

@iamduck @ster @lerk@comm.network You could avoid it. Lock access to the roof and make it illegal for any window above the first or second floor to be able to be opened. We can deprive every citizen int he world the ability to open their windows just in the off case someone somewhere is suicidal. Its a horrible solution, just like the argument around guns is a horrible one, but it can be done.

@freemo
Taking away people's freedom to open windows, and people's freedom to kill others are not at all the same. You are making a fool of yourself by suggesting it.

Why does the US have so many more mass shootings than the UK then? Why aren't they prevented by gun wielding citizens?
@iamduck @lerk

@ster @iamduck @lerk@comm.network What you jsut did is called a strawman.

Taking away peoples freedom to PROTECT themselves. NO ONE has a right to kill others, if you do so when you arent protecting yourself you go to jail for a very long time. You also knew this and it is an immature way to debate (though I do appreciate your opinions so I hope you wont continue down this path of discussion).

@freemo
I respect your opinion too. But guns are lethal force. Protecting yourself would be preventing harm.

A thief has the element of surprise. If he thinks he will get shot, he will shoot first. If neither had a gun, there's a good chance no one will get hurt.
@iamduck @lerk

@ster @iamduck @lerk@comm.network If someone is about to kill you, or kill many people. Then incapacitating them, or even killing them, is protection. Sacraficing yourself would be a far worse ideal to follow I think.

You have to keep in mind not only do guns very often prevent murder, but the criminals who get shot often survive.

@freemo
Victims who get shot would survive as well. Other weapons do less damage to the human body, and therefore using them instead would mean less harm and sufferring overall
@iamduck @lerk

@freemo @iamduck @lerk
If I was in a terrorist attack or mass murder, I'd rather be running from a knife or bat than from a gun when I could die at any moment without any fight

@ster @iamduck @lerk@comm.network If you could actually make it so no guns ever existed in the world and never would again I might be inclined to agree with you. But unfortunately that is not usually the effect of making them illegal.

@ster @iamduck @lerk@comm.network A victim might survive as well yes. But a victim shouldnt have to take those chances, since it is not a victim's choices that led to the situation. If you attempt to put someone else's life at risk it is perfectly acceptable (to me) to have that risk turned back on you instead.

Of course there is also the fact that making guns illegal doesnt result in people actually not having guns. So the premise that we can just make them illegal and then its a guy with a knife vs a guy with a knife isnt really accurate, particularly with such easy access to the 3d printing of guns.

@ster @lerk@comm.network Also the UK if anything is a prime example of exactly why we need gun rights. Not only did the homicide and violence rates sky rocket after banning guns (and never managed to drop back below the levels pre-ban) is very telling.

Add to that that now people are being arrested for carrying screwdrivers and butter knives I think its painfully obvious why no one should go down the path of the UK on gun rights.