@lerk@comm.network @ster @iamduck No its not. It serves a functional purpose. Enjoyment, staying cool, saving money on AC, etc. Its not freedom for freedom sake.

@freemo
I genuinely don't believe people should be given the freedom to kill themselves, and I think that whenever sensible we should prevent it.

This stems from an understanding that people who attempt or consider suicide will often but not alway later say they are glad to be alive.
@lerk @iamduck

@ster @freemo @lerk@comm.network @iamduck If it makes you happy, suicide is illegal in Italy.

@arteteco
This is a complete misunderstanding of what I have said. Making something illegal doesn't by definition prevent it from happening.

Illegal = punishable offense
Prevented = we stop it from happening

People who attempt suicide need whatever help they can be given.

@freemo @lerk @iamduck

@ster @freemo @lerk@comm.network @iamduck You said people shouldn't be given the freedom to kill themselves. Which is the premise to make it illegale.

I said it as a joke, but it's a very slippery slope arguing that government should protect people from themselves, IMO.
I don't take any position on the gun issue, but freedom to kill myself? I want that anytime.

@arteteco
Stopping someone from doing something is not the same as making it illegal.

I disagree that you should have that freedom.
@freemo

@ster @arteteco Ok but I too thought your stance was that guns should be legally restricted. Are you saying you don't feel that guns should have laws restricting their ownership or use?

@freemo
Of course I feel guns should be legally restricted, but not banned. A gun is completely different to a drug. A drug is more similar to suicide methods. Guns have many other problems associated with them. The drug analogy only applies to suicide.
@arteteco

@ster @arteteco I agree that a gun is very different than a drug. But the comparison to drugs is specific to the argument regarding guns being used for suicide. so for that particular scope in the argument I'd say the comparison is valid. Both deal with things mot people agree is undesirable (suiide and drug use) but deal with a persons body autonomy to make such decisions.

I 100% support body autonomy which means while ill do everything i can to discourage people to kill themselves or do heroin, in the end i will recognize it as a right they have and should have all the same.

@freemo
The comparison is unhelpful. Drugs can't easily be used to murder, where as guns can. Drug takers don't normally wish to die, where suicide victims do.

I initially mentioned drugs when you mentioned that you thought whatever happens to a person's body is always their choice. I didn't expect you to seriously believe those nasty substances should be availible at the local store!
@arteteco

@ster @arteteco Most guns arent used to murder either. People who use drugs often accidentally (or even intentionally) kill people. The same is true of a gun owner, most will never harm anyone. Sometimes they do.

Personally I think the comparison has a lot of validity to it.

@freemo
What are most guns used for then? The only reason to have a handgun would be protection... from murderers... with guns...
@arteteco

@ster @arteteco Most guns are used for sport, shooting at targets. It is an olympic sport you know.

@freemo
So why are you arguing about protection???

*There are guns for this in the UK too!*
@arteteco

@ster @arteteco Because while protection is a VERY rare use for a gun compared to more frequent uses (sport) it is still entirely relevant because it can serve that purpose when the very rare case of violence occurs.