Apparently Guns Cause Suicide
The Oregon Daily Emerald reported today that the family of a university alumnus, Kerry Lewiecki, who committed suicide with a firearm are now pushing the legislature for a waiting period for handgun purchases. From the article:
“People get the idea that they can’t go on living and they act on that within minutes or even hours of having that thought,” said Lewiecki’s father, E. Michael Lewiecki. “If (Kerry) had not been able to purchase a handgun so easily, I think there’s a good chance it might not have happened.”
I sympathize with the family’s loss, but I don’t see any logic to the argument that people who decide to kill themselves are regularly purchasing firearms at the time of their decision for the express purpose of doing so, even if Lewiecki did. Sad as it may be, I’m fairly confident that, had he not had access to a firearm, Lewiecki would have found another way to kill himself. Unless we as a society are intent on putting 14-day waiting periods on sleeping pills, too, then let’s be careful to not confuse method with motivation.
The whole waiting period is a red herring in this case as it operates under the assumption that suicides committed with hand guns are only done by handgun-less yet otherwise rational people who suddenly decide to kill themselves and decide a gun shot wound to the head would be the fastest and most painless way to achieve this goal.
Would one of the people supporting restricting gun access, in this case via a waiting period, please explain why it is the job of the state to protect us from the consequences our own actions?
(In this case intention loss of one’s own life)
CJ: So, to you, any time a state level governance changes the conditions of federal law or right, or whatever… you view it as a “restriction of your freedom?” States with different censorship laws, different property management laws, rental agreement laws… all of that is just a potential restriction on freedom, to you. So we should just live as the USFG outlines and not allow state level government to “restrict” the conditions of the rights we are granted, right? Good lord I’m glad I’m not you; that’s a really miserable way to interpret law. I can see why so many things make you angry.
Everyone else said stuff that doesn’t matter.
EPT Said (emphasis added): “Basically it comes down to the fact that you merely think it’s wrong for a state to impose such a condition. Which is fine, you’re welcome to think that. You just haven’t given me much of a reason why other than “I wanna buy a gun now!” To which I responded “if you have time to buy a gun, you have time to go to the police.” To which you didn’t respond. You also haven’t responded to my reasoning for sufficient background checks. ”
As has been stated here already for the OMG-th time: The onus of responsibility for passing new legislation that would change the conditions of access to firearms (again, not the right of possessing a firearm, but the current freedom of access to firearms) is on the shoulders of those that are in support of the legislation.
Your argument is basically “why not?”. This is quite poor, because it is basically shirking the responsibility of making your case, and instead tries to place the burden on defense of the status quo. But the status quo is not on trial here, and doesn’t need to defend itself.
So lets try and get past all the flailing and gnashing of teeth about rights and freedoms and constitutionality of the 2nd amendment, since those are basically distractions.
Lets get back to the original point, which is this new legislation on the table.
So, EPT – make your case in support of this … GO.
(EPT Said a way long time ago): “There is very, very little empirical data to back up numbers from either side of the argument, so my little anecdotal translation of your claim shouldn’t be taken seriously …”
Don’t worry, it never was. But it did make for some fun and entertaining reading!
OK, that’s a wrap people, I think we’re done here …
The distribution of guns can be easily considered interstate commerce. Under the commerce clause the fed govt can regulate the sale of anything, including guns. A waiting period does not contradict the 2nd Amendment b/c it does not hinder the actual possession of guns, only the purchase of them. Prescribed sleeping bills are already regulated under Controlled Substance Act, which is constitutional under commerce clause. Doctors would be extremely reluctant to give pills to someone demand such pills immediately and/or suicidal. There is no free speech issue regarding possession of certain drugs, so why here?
There is no real issue w/ Free Speech, the issue is the purchase of firearms, which Congress can without a doubt regulate.
@EPT – Another point that leaves me unconvinced by your argument is any sort of empirical data or authority you can present that includes a statistically significant relationship that reduces violence given more restriction on the right of bear arms. I would be surprised by any evidence given the strong arguments, a priori, which disprove such claims, especially since you seem to be in no position to even offer a qualified opinion. So please, enlighten the readers here with the basis of your rumors other than your ability to shriek lies electronically.
Already you have heard the qualified opinions of:
1) Professionally employed journalist who has at least fully comprehended the Heller and McDonald decisions and quite accurately described the legal theories behind the right and current infringements.
2) Professionally employed hunter/guide with over a decade of carrying arms for personal defense and professional use with successful DGU.
3) Award-winning professional military shooter and competitive shooter that carries arms for self defense, and trains military personnel on firearm use in combat.
We’re all somewhat perplexed at your attempts to “correct” the truth regarding firearms, so I hope you’re not surprised by response you’re receiving. I imagine an argument against heliocentricism would evoke a similar response, but we are happy to perform this public service.
I just figured why everything you say is like nails on a chalkboard to me, Evan.
You said (emphasis added): “You’re basically trying to blend two different ideas: one idea is the concept that we are given the right to gun ownership, the other idea is a concept is that you are given the right to gun ownership immediately. One of these rights exists, one doesn’t.”
Rights aren’t given to us by the government.
Anway, we’re getting tripped up on the difference between rights and a freedoms. Let’s define our terms: Rights are freedoms off-limits to action by voters, legislators or an executive. Freedoms have less protection and can be restricted though the democratic process. All rights are freedoms, but not all freedoms are rights. Capiche?
In Oregon, I have the right to own a gun and the freedom to buy it immediately. I can walk into an Oregon gun store, buy a gun and take it home the same day. That freedom exists. If the government changes the law to impose a waiting period, it has restricted my previously allowed legal freedom. This is not rocket-science.
We’ve already agreed that the arguments for suicide prevention and “cool down periods” are mostly unquantifiable, and as I’ve argued, the burden of proof should be on the state to justify the need for a waiting period. Oregon already performs background checks through the state police. If you want to argue for a more comprehensive background check, fine, although why that would take 14 days is beyond me. So what’s left?
I’m pretty much done here, unless you want to argue about semantics and philosophy regarding natural, civic and legal rights.
P.S. You are correct that the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to buy a gun. That’s why Washington D.C. and Chicago can maintain de facto gun bans even though bans on owning guns were struck down by the Supreme Court. It’s a convenient way for gun-control goons to sidestep the Constitution.
Oh, and just because it’s worth noting: the 2nd Amendment doesn’t *actually* give the people the right to *buy* a gun (which is the only situation in which a waiting period is applicable). It gives them the right to *possess* one.
@Gsim: the best way for me to explain to you how wrong you are isn’t with text, it’s with law. States currently have waiting periods on guns. If it was unconstitutional, they wouldn’t.
Basically it comes down to the fact that you merely think it’s wrong for a state to impose such a condition. Which is fine, you’re welcome to think that. You just haven’t given me much of a reason why other than “I wanna buy a gun now!” To which I responded “if you have time to buy a gun, you have time to go to the police.” To which you didn’t respond. You also haven’t responded to my reasoning for sufficient background checks.
But the important thing here is that using the “freedoms” argument is not actually a legitimate reason, because it’s apples and oranges.
Ashley… EPT… seriously be less retarded? It pains me to do it, but I will now attempt to teach a pig to sing.
Ashley – The bill of rights enumerates individual liberties, not “collective militia rights” Please, join me in American Government 101 for a second and lets examine the bill of rights specifically 1st and 4th amendments to the constitution.
1st: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging…the right of /the people/ peaceably to assemble….
4th Amendment: “The right of /the people/ to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects….”
Does “the people” mean individuals in the 1st? yes.
Does “the people” mean individuals in the 4th? yes.
Now lets look at the second amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of /the people/ to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
What does “the people” mean here????? Dur, dur…
Furthermore, the 3rd, 5th and 6th amendments are also specifically about individual freedoms. Man, it sure would be strange if the framers of the constitution just decided to throw in one collective right. But don’t take my word on it, I’m just agreeing with the Supreme Court. Go ahead and google District of Columbia v. Heller. Hurrah!!!
Now on to EPT – dude you’d fit right in with the brown shirts. Keep up the goose-stepping. I’m impressed.
CJ said: “Sad days when vigorously defending part of the Bill of Rights is “hyper-conservative” and “reactionary.””
Then CJ said: “I’m not talking about the constitutionality of waiting periods.”
Wait, what? Make up your mind. For someone consistently talking about “freedoms” you should probably know that “freedoms” of this nature are
in the realm of the Constitution…
You’re basically trying to blend two different ideas: one idea is the concept that we are given the right to gun ownership, the other idea is a concept is that you are given the right to gun ownership immediately. One of these rights exists, one doesn’t.
Try to stick with me, here:
When you add a condition to a right or law (ie: “in less than 14 days”), it actually changes the effect of the law. Incredible, right? You aren’t allowed to just mix your own conditions into the actual granted right and claim that by not following your criteria, the right is therefore restricted. An example of restricting the gun ownership would be declining someone the ability to actually own a gun at all for some reason that isn’t conditional in the second amendment.
CJ said: “You have the freedom of action to buy a gun without waiting.”
No. Wrong. Incorrect. That freedom does not exist. The freedom is the right to buy a gun at all. HOW you buy that gun, or WHEN you can buy that gun is up to the state. But that’s not the FREEDOM, CJ… that’s a CONDITION. The freedom is your right to buy a gun. Period. As long as you are allowed the action of buying a gun, everything else could be different from state to state. One state might make you do ten jumping jacks to buy the gun as a condition, one state might have you recite the alphabet backwards (these are not what actual conditions would be, and both present accessibility issues, so please do not take them literally). The ability to impose or reject a waiting period for gun ownership is not a freedom. That’s one of the reasons you and I can disagree about whether waiting periods are valid or not; it’s fluid! But it’s also the reason that an argument against waiting period that has to do with freedoms and rights and all of that is completely incorrect.
Face, meet palm.
Let’s try again: If the government won’t allow you to do something, you are no longer free to do so without the force of the state being used against you. You no longer are free to act in that regard.
Oregon currently allows you to buy a gun with no waiting period. You have the freedom of action to buy a gun without waiting. If the government imposes a 14 day waiting period, they are restricting that. How is that not a prevention of access? From what I can gather, you think the citizens of Oregon have no expectation to that access in the first place, so it’s a not a big deal for the government to take it away. That’s a pretty poor way to approach negative liberties. Unless you’re an authoritarian.
And since you can’t seem to grasp this, either: I’m not talking about the constitutionality of waiting periods. Waiting periods are constitutional. We’re talking about whether it’s reasonable to impose a waiting period and restrict that access which already exists according to state law.
EPT, perhaps your ‘confusion” has to do with your ‘assumption.’ No matter. One person’s conservative is often another’s liberal – or whatever in between.
My real interest on this thread is Rockne’s original post at the beginning. Audrey Maslin’s letter in today’s R-G addresses that quite nicely.
that*
The freedom to get a gun in less than 14 days is not a freedom than exists. The freedom is for you to get a gun. Period. Which is not infringed.
If the government makes you wait 14 days to obtain a gun, you don’t have the freedom to get a gun in less than 14 days. I wasn’t aware that was such a hard concept to grasp.
How the fuck, in your mind, does “restricting freedom” equate to “waiting period?” That is the stupidest argument of all time. We have to wait for so many services, products, contracts, properties, agreements, etc to come to fruition. Including guns! It’s not like we’re arguing about a situation that hasn’t occurred, there are currently 10 or so states that have established waiting periods for firearm purchases! To equate this to a restriction of freedom or a prevention of access is not only dumb, it’s just wrong.
Thank you. I thought it was pretty cool.
It’s great that you think I’m “bleating” about the government because I think there should be a high barrier for passing laws restricting people’s freedoms. Obviously, I’m just a gun-nut because I won’t accept your tangential reasoning that limiting everyone’s access to guns is good because some unknown number of people might not hurt themselves in a given instance. It is definitely the government’s job to keep us from hurting ourselves. And I’m just trotting out hypothetical situations when I say 1,500 women are killed every year by ex-husbands and boyfriends.
Extra-hypothetical-credit: http://www.pinkpistols.org/
@Gsim: Yeah, you bad conservatives (or are you a bad libertarian, you did make mention of victimless crime in your freedoms, or maybe you’re a bad anarchist?– I don’t know) like to confuse something being regulated with it not being a freedom. When, in fact, it’s pretty much apples and oranges. Speech is regulated too, in multiple venues for multiple reasons. That doesn’t mean you aren’t free to speak. So, you’re right. Your crazy idea is pretty radical, and I’d prefer not to live in a country without government regulation (at least some– in many other areas it can probably just go away). But I suppose the government shouldn’t “force its will upon you” by, I don’t know, requiring you to have auto insurance, or protecting corporations from theft by making it illegal for you to shoplift, or making free education available to you for the first 18 years of your life.
Beyond that, though, the concept that you are being denied a freedom by having to wait a maximum of 14 days is absurd.
@Java: I’m going to assume your a conservative too, so I’m really confused. So many contemporary conservatives are for capital punishment, and adoption of police forces, and trust in law enforcement, and taser usage, etc (it’s always those hyper-left wing hippi’s that are anti-police), and then when the 2nd Amendment discussion comes up they suddenly flip-flop and are staunchly of the stance that law enforcement isn’t good enough and that we have to protect ourselves. It’s a really odd hypocrisy.
CJ, it’s pretty cool how you ignore everything but the low hanging fruit in your responses.
I’d respond, but it basically looks like you’re trolling. Especially since your arguments consist of bleating about the big dumb government while making up hypothetical situations. Roll out some analogies and we might get this bitch to 50.
Ashley: I think you’re mixing up “right” and “entitlement.” Just b/c I have a right to something doesn’t mean I am entitled to it. That is, I have a right, w/out the government infringing, to own a gun should I choose to buy one. But I don’t have a right to force another person to make (and subsequently give me) a gun.
Another helpful example would be to apply the same analysis to the 1st Amendment: I have a right to free speech. But I don’t have the right to force another person to provide me w/ a soap box from which to speak.
Again, the same analysis can be applied to the “unalienable” right to medical services. Regardless of what the DOI says, that simply is not so. I have no “right” to demand medical services from another person.
Good discussion. EPT brings a lot to the table, but may not be living in the real world of public safety, budget cuts and imminent danger when he argues, “If we’re talking about someone feeling unsafe to the point where they have time to head down to their local gun shop and pick up a .22, then that person certainly has time to pick up the phone and call the police and/or head down to their local police station. The police are much more apt to protect citizens than 95% of citizens are for protecting themselves. You know, training and all that.”
Back to the original topic, here’s how 80-year old Audrey Maslin interprets personal freedom:
http://www.registerguard.com/web/opinion/26041189-47/eugene-citizens-officer-cat-cats.html.csp
Also, another thought to add to the discussion of whether or not a waiting period is constitutional: if owning a gun is a right, and anything that prevents you from owning one for a period of time is unconstitutional, why aren’t they being given out for free? Is a gun store violating my constitutional right to a firearm by not giving me one if I can’t pay for it?
I feel like something is missing from this discussion. We’re asking for numbers as they relate to the success of a waiting period, which I think is a good idea, but it seems that the argument over waiting periods being detrimental is similarly based on conjecture. Personally, I don’t accept that the idea that the waiting period is unconstitutional–the 2nd amendment allows you to own a gun (or, rather, it allows a MILITIA to own guns, but I’m not going to open up that can of worms here), but it has no stipulations about the circumstances surrounding how you come to own one. If people have to wait weeks on end for life-saving medical procedures–which is an even more important, unalienable right, according to the Declaration of Independence–a two-week waiting period for a gun seems perfectly acceptable. Do we have any numbers to show that this waiting period is detrimental in a practical sense?
Also, what’s with everyone saying that the waiting period just functions as a “cool-down” period for people considering suicide? I’m MUCH more interested in the fact that it might function to cut down on crimes of passion, or at least the ability to use that as a defense in court.
I have this crazy idea. It is really radical. You might have heard of it before – not sure, it’s called… freedom!
Here’s how it goes – you don’t interfere with other people’s business or preferences. Insane right? How does that even work, you ask? It sounds hard, but it’s actually really simple! Basically, you don’t use coercion to make people do what you want. Instead, you let people do whatever they want with their lives.
Examples:
Be gay – cool!
Dress slutty – please!
Have 5 wives – awesome!
Drive sports cars – win!
Worship sky wizard – sweet!
Kill yourself – whatever, not my business!
Try this freedom thing out the next time someone does something you don’t like. Instead of thinking, “What law can I get passed to ban, regulate or otherwise control this other person’s actions?” You remember that government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is only force and forcing your will on others is wrong.
p.s. Lyzi is awesomesauce and a badass broad.
You just said you don’t think it would be difficult for a government to maintain an accurate database of every human being eligible for gun ownership (which can be a rather fluid decision, not black and white), and to ensure that database is updated daily and accessible to all gun shops. Ha. The goverment can’t keep hardly any accurate databases, NGA.
You’re talking about the definition of an unnecessary governmental program. I suppose all landlords and employers who want background information should just have access to some database that the government provides that either has a green check mark or a red “X” by someone’s name? No. Because that’s a horrid idea and a magnificent waste of tax dollars. Instead, like every other entity that might request a background check, gun shops should request a background check on their customers, and receive it whenever law enforcement (or some third part background check company that works with law enforcement) prioritizes it enough to do it: like everything else. Gun shops shouldn’t get special treatment with the creation of some universal database, lol.
No.
Let’s start with this question:
If there is solid data that many people who attempt suicide once and don’t succeed, don’t attempt it again, and also solid data that a large percentage of gun deaths are suicides, would you support a waiting period for gun purchases to give potential suicides time to reconsider?
I like you, Guy.
EPT: It wouldn’t be difficult for the government to have a database w/ a list of people who are eligible for gun ownership – clerk types in my SSN and will be told whether I am eligible or not (no private information revealed). Lets use our brain power for constructive solutions, not off the wall assertions.
NGA: So you’re okay with giving a retail clerk access to any citizen’s criminal database? Or would you rather every gun shop in the state have a cop who parks there all day just to run checks on everyone who comes in shopping? Get real.
Right. Agreed. And I think while there isn’t sufficient evidence to make the “cool down” period argument, on either side, I think there is pretty significant evidence that a thorough background check can’t be performed by a retail clerk in less than an afternoon.
Background check argument is a joke: (1) Background checks take seconds – when we are pulled over officers run background checks all the time. This is reason enough to throw out this phony claim but I have another. (2) Fact is the black market for guns is pervasive…criminals have criminal connections.
“Cool of Period” argument is a joke: (1) You don’t provide any numbers on how many murders are committed after one buys a gun w/out a “cool off period.” I would venture to say very few. But again, that’s the job of the promoter of the law – quit throwing out “for the betterment of society” proclamations and telling CJ to prove you wrong. (2) A gun is one way to kill a person. If someone was truly upset – enough to kill someone – do you think they would stop and say “damn I don’t have a gun?” More likely than not they would probably kill the person some other way or find a freakin gun. In other words, quit blaming the gun and start blaming the person. (3) Your arguments consistently focus on those w/ bad intentions. What of those w/ good intentions? What do you say to those who are harmed during this two week period b/c they didn’t have a way to protect themselves?
These regulations are really just a way for the government to provide people who favor these sorts of laws w/ a false sense of security. All the while, responsible gun owners are the only ones who will be deprived of their rights while irresponsible gun owners thrive.
Well, if there’s little empirical data and your numbers mean very little, that seems like a poor excuse for a new piece of legislation, hmm? Like I said, the onus is on you to prove the need for a bill restricting people’s actions. If you think it’s the other way around (i.e. the people must prove to the government why their actions shouldn’t be curtailed), we can just stop this discussion right now.
A “hassle for most” and a “barrier for an unfortunate few” sounds just as unquantifiable as what you paint the counter argument to be. It’s probably more like a “hassle for most people who really, really want a gun” (which I don’t have a problem with, let them be hassled, being hassled isn’t unconstitutional, after all) and “a barrier for an unfortunate few that probably reflects a lower statistic than people who kill themselves with their own firearm after purchase.”
There is very, very little empirical data to back up numbers from either side of the argument, so my little anecdotal translation of your claim shouldn’t be taken seriously, just to prove the point that your numbers mean just as little as mine. However, there are quite a few people in this country who don’t think a sufficient and complete background check can be completed in less than an afternoon.
You say “herp derp” when you’re wrong a lot. It’s like your way of avoiding presenting any sort of counter-claim because you don’t have one. It’s funny.
The waiting period argument doesn’t even matter in situations that are directly imminent. If you’re talking about being met in a dark alleyway and having to fend for your life, then whether or not the gun you bought had a two week waiting period is kind of an irrelevant subject.
If we’re talking about someone feeling unsafe to the point where they have time to head down to their local gun shop and pick up a .22, then that person certainly has time to pick up the phone and call the police and/or head down to their local police station. The police are much more apt to protect citizens than 95% of citizens are for protecting themselves. You know, training and all that.
And you’re not defending the Bill of Rights, CJ. Gun waiting periods have existed and continue to exist in this country for years, and have not been considered unconstitutional by any federal court. It is a power entrusted to the state.
I am pro-waiting period primarily to allow time for sufficient background checks, and slightly because of the “cool off period” argument.
Sad days when vigorously defending part of the Bill of Rights is “hyper-conservative” and “reactionary.”
Right now in Oregon you can buy a gun with only a background check. That is the current norm. As others have pointed out, if you want to impose greater restrictions on people’s actions than currently exist, the onus is on you to provide a justification. And I have to say, “Well, what’s your excuse for having this freedom in the first place?” isn’t exactly a compelling argument for curtailing citizens’ access to self-defense.
I’m not sure how you extrapolated “wave it around ineffectively in front of a bogeyman” from anything I said, but let’s try again. Sometimes people face grave threats to their safety and may want to arm themselves. Around 1,500 women are killed each year by ex-husbands or boyfriends. Women and sexual minorities face a much greater risk of being victims of violent crime. Would you tell them that, if they felt the need to buy a gun on short-notice, they were scared of bogeymen?
By imposing a two-week waiting period, you’re creating a hassle for most and a harmful barrier for an unfortunate few, all in the name of protecting some unquantifiable number of people from harming themselves. Sounds about right for government work.
I feel like you’re grasping at straws here, CJ. As someone who apparently really likes guns you should know that owning one and knowing how to use it are two very different things.
Furthermore there is evidence that shows sleeping on the decision to commit suicide is beneficial (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31780455/ns/health-mental_health/ and in hilarious list fashion: http://www.cracked.com/article_18648_the-9-most-statistically-terrifying-days-calendar_p2.html).
Yes, this man could have found another way to commit suicide, but someone making a rash, impulse decision is definitely going to opt for the quick and painless route rather than the slow, draining shutdown offered by virtually all other options.
Two weeks seems excessive to me, but to claim you have some sort of right to get a gun immediately seems reactionary when your only justification is wanting to wave it around ineffectively in front of a bogeyman.
The upside would be that a depressed and suicidal person would have two more weeks to wait before making their final decision, and thus would have 2 more weeks to really think about it and reflect. Maybe they could find a reason to live, and could be granted a 2nd chance at being happy. Maybe even finding a special someone along the way …
Man, I need to pull up a word processor … I could totally spin this into a screenplay for a romantic comedy or something. I think I’d call it “2 Week Notice” …
@EPT: Right on, man – the fuzz has your back! Next time I run into a bad guy, I’ll ask him to hold on and wait a minute from shanking me some more while I call 9-1-1 on my cell phone.
And since we’ve brought up a potential downside, I was wondering if you could explain what the upside is to requiring people to wait two weeks to get a gun. All I see here is stubborn statism with no reason to back it up.
I never said one shouldn’t contact law enforcement first, but thank you for HERP DERPING all over my argument. They call it the thin, blue line for a reason. Sometimes you can’t wait two weeks to ensure your safety. The emphasis here is on “ensure” because the police can’t ensure your safety.
People who feel the government is a perfectly acceptable replacement for self-defense are the reason the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution and off-limits to majority action, Evan.
And yeah, the whole “waiting period on the first amendment” argument is what I referenced earlier: stubborn hyper-conservative rhetoric with no tangible reason to back it.
People who feel their safety is in jeopardy and thus have the immediate reaction is to buy and use a gun instead of contacting law enforcement is one of the very reasons waiting periods for fire arms should exist, CJ.
Yeah, like lets say you’re a nice lady with a brand new psycho ex-boyfriend. Sure would suck to have to wait two weeks to deploy your right to self defense.
Also, not an infringement? I bet it’d be an infringement if there was a waiting period on the 1st amendment. I sure would like to timely publish on this current event… oh wait, have to wait two weeks so I don’t say anything rash and cause civil unrest.
With the restrictions of civil rights, the onus isn’t to show the downside of firearm waiting periods. The onus is on the boot stomping statist to show how the infringement on our freedoms would do anyone any good.
Finally, this was a grown man with two college degrees who by many accounts was very clever and resourceful. I’m going out on a limb here and I’m willing to bet he could have found another way to kill himself.
Actually, I can think of a downside to a waiting-period: not being able to get a gun quickly.
If you felt like your safety was in jeopardy and wanted to buy a gun to defend yourself, that waiting-period would kind of suck.
I actually agree with Evan. A waiting period is not an infringement on rights at all. It seems kind of silly unless there’s a purpose for it (increased background checks, etc.) but whatever.
I think the point Rockne was trying to make was that even if there was a waiting period, Lewiecki would have found another way to commit suicide. The logic his family and friends are applying is akin to saying that if abortions were not available, everyone would have protected sex. He is trying to say that the logic in the situation is flawed.
What downside is there for firearm waiting periods? Like, I get the conservative stance that, like, rejects change stubbornly, or whatever, but I’ve yet to hear a downside.
It is not the gun nor the purchasing of guns that causes suicide. It’s the emotional instability of the person is what causes it. And the emotional instability is a by-product of what is happening to families and adults nowadays. Yes, he felt love from his families but we don’t really know what lies within his mind. It could have been the pressure and the stress to live up to the ideals that he can no longer take.
Here’s what your logic is up against:
http://www.registerguard.com/web/newslocalnews/26154820-41/bill-suicide-prozanski-committee-class.html.csp
Not standing up for the legislation one way or another, but access to firearms is one of the first things that is determined when someone is determined to be a suicide risk. Guns in the house have been shown to be a huge risk factor in suicide cases – likely because they are perceived as being quicker and more effective than sleeping pills or hanging or what have you.
You’re right that firearms aren’t the only way to do it, but it’s not inaccurate to say firearms in the house present a huge risk factor for people who are suicidal. Whether you feel like it should be codified into law as a waiting period for all people is debatable, but not the special role guns play in suicide risk