Of course, guns are used for suicide very often in the USA because it's an effective way to do it. If we're going to ban guns to prevent suicide, we also need to ban carbon monoxide, medicine, and ropes.

I seriously wish you people would stop with this FUD. The ONLY people talking about banning guns in the country are the anti-gun control crowd. It's a scare tactic designed to derail rational gun control discussion.

This.

Also, conquestor3s argument is a nirvana fallacy. Gun control won't prevent all suicides, therefore we should do nothing about it? That's patently ridiculous, like arguing that you can still die in a car crash, therefore seat belts are pointless.

That's not a proper comparison.

He was basically saying, if people are trying to commit suicide, taking away guns won't stop them from using any of the few dozen other equally good methods. Sure, it'd take away the most popular method, but it wouldn't suddenly make their suicidal desires go away.
People (in general) don't try to crash a car. Seat belts reduce damage when a car is accidentally crashed.

Comparing the two is ridiculous. If he was arguing that safeties on guns don't matter because accidents still happen, you'd have a point. As it is, his claim is simply that banning one method of suicide does not prevent people from using another equally-accessible and equally-convenient method, of which I can easily name a half-dozen or more that, to me personally, would be equally appealing forms of suicide. Some even superior forms.

Note: gun accidents are definitely important topic in gun control. Gun suicides, in my opinion, aren't valid ammunition for the gun-control proponents to fire off. Suicides are a serious topic that should be discussed, but tying them to the gun-control debate is mostly just an appeal to emotion by trying to inflate numbers. If someone wants to commit suicide, the absence of a gun won't stop them. Unless you're trying to say the presence of a gun encourages suicide - which may be true, and would be an interesting topic to discuss in a discussion focused on suicide.

He's arguing that removing guns will barely budge the suicide rate. You claim he's arguing that because there's no perfect solution, we shouldn't make an attempt. What he's arguing and what you claim he's arguing are so far different that it honestly surprised me that not only one, but two, people would be making the same claim against him. Either you're accidentally twisting his argument into something entirely different than what he said. Or you're intentionally twisting his argument into something completely different than what he said. But the fact is:
"Of course, guns are used for suicide very often in the USA because it's an effective way to do it. If we're going to ban guns to prevent suicide, we also need to ban carbon monoxide, medicine, and ropes."
...is entirely different from:
"Gun control won't prevent all suicides, therefore we should do nothing about it?"

If you want to throw out debate terms (as if knowing the term automatically disqualifies it as an argument?), here you pretend he is making an argument he isn't actually making:
"Gun control won't prevent all suicides, therefore we should do nothing about it?"
And here you knock it down through mockery:
"That's patently ridiculous"
And through the use an inapt analogy:
"like arguing that you can still die in a car crash, therefore seat belts are pointless."

Of course, guns are used for suicide very often in the USA because it's an effective way to do it. If we're going to ban guns to prevent suicide, we also need to ban carbon monoxide, medicine, and ropes.

I seriously wish you people would stop with this FUD. The ONLY people talking about banning guns in the country are the anti-gun control crowd. It's a scare tactic designed to derail rational gun control discussion.

Calling it FUD is silly, because it's not Fear, Uncertainty, or Doubt. It's attempted sarcasm pointing out that guns being used for suicides are an incidental connection, and shouldn't be used to argue for gun control. It's actually when people add suicides into "gun violence" numbers, that FUD is really being used.

Also, calling the person you are debating with "you people" (your own words), is deliberate self-distancing language to identify the "opposing side" as "the enemy", preventing you from fully processing what they are saying, by regulating them to a category that is sub-human. It prevents you from hearing anything they say that may have value. You self-damage your own ability to gain knowledge and to come to an understanding, by casting your discussion-opponents in a less-than-human light.

If you truly want to gain in knowledge, and not just win arguments, you need to be able to accept knowledge even from your "enemies". Otherwise, you'd just perpetuate a cycle of polarization, helping to prevent common ground from being reached. "National gun discussion" isn't actually a discussion if you yourself aren't willing to listen to your opponent's side. A discussion isn't "keep talking until everyone agrees with my view".

We live in a culture now that is ridiculously "us vs them", where people seem incapable of critical thinking, just subscribing to the entire ideology (good and bad) of whatever groups they subscribe to.

Again, it wasn't FUD, it wasn't a scare tactic. It was sarcasm. He wasn't really suggesting or advocating that rope will be banned (as you obviously realized); he was making a valid point - one which surely you can debate on its own merits?

On the other hand, saying that banning guns wouldn't reduce homicides is silly, and that's the argument you should be taking aim at, and the one I'm sure he's willing to return fire on.

==========================================================

As far as the discussion as a whole, my only real input is that many anti-gun control advocates are willing for a fair compromise, but the biggest obstacle is people want to create a single set of law that applies to every situation across the entire country, when really the situation in bad areas of California is entirely different from rural Missouri, having lived in both. If you want a single One Law To Rule Them All, then we get into debates of "The law should reflect what makes sense in my area!" vs "Na-ah! The law should be written about what makes sense in my area!"

As humans we like to categorize things, and we like to simplify things, and we like to universally apply things. If you want to really make a universal set of rules, then it needs to start by recognizing that not everywhere is the same, and then make compromises on both sides. If politicians on both sides of the aisle stop catering to the mindless drones for campaign donations, we could come to reasonable compromises almost overnight. And if you think "politicians catering to mindless drones" only means republicans, and your favorite party is different, then congratulations, you win the "mindless drone" label yourself. As penance, reread the critical thinking article.

Okay, lets turn to syria for a quick glance on how well an armed country can wage war against a regular army... it turns out even with real military weapons delivered by outside powers these rebels are still pretty much no match for the syrian army.

You seem to have missed the news where they took one city after another and where they blew up one building in Palmyra after the other...

I think you may be confusing the Syrian rebels with IS. They aren't the same thing.

Right, some aren't IS; some are Al Qaeda.

Servant, there's plenty of evidence to show that gun controls DO reduce suicide rates. True, people who really want to kill themselves eventually find a way, but ready access to guns provide an "instant solution". It's a lot easier to kill yourself with a gun than almost any other way.

So yeah, I stand by my argument that it's a nirvana fallacy.

Okay, lets turn to syria for a quick glance on how well an armed country can wage war against a regular army... it turns out even with real military weapons delivered by outside powers these rebels are still pretty much no match for the syrian army.

You seem to have missed the news where they took one city after another and where they blew up one building in Palmyra after the other...

I think you may be confusing the Syrian rebels with IS. They aren't the same thing.

Right, some aren't IS; some are Al Qaeda.

Well, the Russian army can't tell them apart either. According to news, they bombed both sides (or the wrong side? or whoever?) a day ago. Putin said they didn't, but whenever Russian government openly denies something, it's guaranteed that they did.

If Putin doesn't see a difference, how am I supposed to

They're people with guns and bazookas who want to take over the government, they shoot at civilians and destroy cultural heritage sites thousands of years old. Call them rebels or terrorists, same thing to me.

In the end, whether history will see them as terrorists or freedom fighters or rightful rulers depends solely on whether they are successful (think of the Khmer Rouge, for example).

Okay, lets turn to syria for a quick glance on how well an armed country can wage war against a regular army... it turns out even with real military weapons delivered by outside powers these rebels are still pretty much no match for the syrian army.

You seem to have missed the news where they took one city after another and where they blew up one building in Palmyra after the other...

I think you may be confusing the Syrian rebels with IS. They aren't the same thing.

Right, some aren't IS; some are Al Qaeda.

Well, the Russian army can't tell them apart either. According to news, they bombed both sides (or the wrong side? or whoever?) a day ago. Putin said they didn't, but whenever Russian government openly denies something, it's guaranteed that they did.

If Putin doesn't see a difference, how am I supposed to

They're people with guns and bazookas who want to take over the government, they shoot at civilians and destroy cultural heritage sites thousands of years old. Call them rebels or terrorists, same thing to me.

In the end, whether history will see them as terrorists or freedom fighters or rightful rulers depends solely on whether they are successful (think of the Khmer Rouge, for example).

To be fair, I'm doubtful that Putin wants to see a difference. He's more interested in keeping Assad in power than anything else.

I do agree with ChaosEngine that there is a fallacy in the argument. I've even heard arguments that say that criminals will still find a way to get guns, therefore gun control is pointless as it doesn't let the average person get guns.

We don't need to ban guns, nor are we saying that law abiding citizens should not have access to them. But at the same time, look at piloting licenses or driving licenses: those aren't handed out without a proper process. Sure there's background checks in the US, but I think we need to expand this process a bit more. If you are a law abiding citizen, then what do you have to fear? You'll still be allowed to have a gun (or multiple guns) should that be your desire. Some people argue that they feel like they are being treated like criminals this way, but then would you argue that any person trying to get a license to drive is being treated like a criminal? Yes being allowed to own a gun is a right and driving is not, but these are dangerous tools, and some efforts must be made to ensure their safe use.

To be fair, I'm doubtful that Putin wants to see a difference. He's more interested in keeping Assad in power than anything else.

I wouldn't want to judge his motives, although that seems not unlikely.

But even so... is it any different from how the USA wished that Batista had kept the power in Cuba? Unlike Assad, Batista had done a coup d'état. But that was OK. The USA quickly acknowledged him as "legitimate" ruler because that came in handy. Now, Assad's family was traditionally well-respected in their culture, and previous-Assad (now-Assad's father) was regularly appointed the supreme leader. Now-Assad has been re-elected, too. I don't see how this makes him a bad guy.

Yeah, all their power comes form the fact that his grandfather was one famous big badass fighter in the 1920s, and the Syrians respect force. But heck, if you keep re-electing that family out of "tradition" or because Ol' Grampa Assad was a tough guy, then you need not complain if they rule. After you elected them.

Look at Pol Pot, who had approximately 3 million of his people murdered (not counting the ones that died in war, and not counting the ca. 800,000 vietnamnese). Geez, people say Hitler was bad, but this guy slaughtered between one third and one half of the population, for no good reason, just like that. But that's OK, nobody bothers. Pol Pot was in office for 30 or so years, and he had a long happy life, and now one of his old slaughter buddies rules the country. That's OK.

On the other hand, Persia under Shah Pahlavi was a really good place to be, people were happy, and Persia was a "really good neighbour", too. But of course Persia has a lot of oil, something that the British-Russian invaders already noticed during World War II when they took over the peaceful Persia and stole their oil. But hey that's OK.

Now of course, Pahlavi was not in the interest of the USA. A stable western-friendly government and a prosperous, happy Iranian population is hard to tackle. Getting oil out of ravenous religious warmongers in exchange for weapons is a lot easier. Thank you, Jimmy Carter, thank you for supplying weapons to the rebels, thank you for 40 years of organized muslim terror since then. Oh, and congratulations on your Peace Nobel Prize (which, to be frank, is soooo cynical... why not award Khomeini with the Nobel Prize as well!).

So... what exactly is it with Assad that makes him such a particularly bad guy? After all, he (and all his buddies and family members in the government) has been rightfully elected, and elected again. And their fathers before them. The people may not be happy with one or the other thing (and yes, I am aware that a tiny bit of corruption is going on), but they did elect them. Heck, I'm not happy with Merkel either. But that's just bad luck for me.

After all, he (and all his buddies and family members in the government) has been rightfully elected, and elected again.

I believe dictators have guns literally at people to make sure they "vote" for the "right" candidate. So rightfully elected may be a bit of a stretch.

I understand you point of view about assymetric warfare being relatively untested against brutal goverments in the mordern world, especially when the populace is heavilly armed. The closes example I could find, really, is the Ukraine, where the rebels kind of got what they wanted, but not really.

It's untested, but I mean, it's a safeguard. It might not be perfect, but having an armed populace would be better than not having one in that situation.

If the government did declare open warfare, and just start bombing cities, I'd expect our (also heavilly militarized) police to begin rebelling in that case as well, along with the national guard and militias.

Well, the Ukraine might be a bad example because that is one hell of a mess where nobody REALLY is sure who is involved on which side... as far as western media see it, its the unkrainian army amred with pretty up to date soviet era weapons, some modernized, against a smaller body of rebels armed with more up to date post-soviet era weapons...

Sounds pretty even if you ask me, not assymetric at all. And the resulting stalemate IMO rather supports the thesis that the rebels are armed and supported by covert russian support than the "asymmetric warfare" of the Donbass rebels being more effective than assymetric warfares in other places.

Lets be honest. Without modern russian equipment and the needed coaching from expierienced soldiers, the Donbass rebellion would have been steamrolled long ago by the ukrainian army... who, against all outside expecatations, proved to be actually quite competent, well armed, and surpsisingly motivated in defending the unity of the ukrainian territory.

Not that this would have done a good job in bringing peace to the Donbass region. If there is one thing assymetric warfare can do, it is keeping a conflict smoldering for years and decades.

My point is a different one though... my point is:

No matter if the general public is armed with small caliber guns or not. In case of an uprising, these guns are hardly making a big difference. Assault rifles and submachine guns can with proper training and against a not too strong foe, against a military the strength of the US one, in a numerical position not outnumbered enough (lets say up to 1 vs 10), even assault rifles will make little difference if one side has access to full body armour, tanks, drones and snipers with long range rifles, while the other might get cheap police style body armour, assault rifles at best and maybe the odd hunting rifle with scope.

In the end, the weaker foe in an asymmetric conflict will want to use the stronger foes weapons against him. Both to steal waepons that cannot be used by the stronger one, as making sure they have access to the same weapons. Then and only then the playing field in equipment starts to get level, and only then nummerical superiority might match much better training on the side of the military.

If the hypothetical future US government needs to be removed, first thing your hypothetical partisans should and will do is try to storm US army bases and get ahold of modern weapons, vehicles and technology.

Will home-defense guns make this job easier? Well, maybe... still the best approach is to either break in and try to get around guards (no weapons needed), or just storm the base with as many people as possible (death toll will be horrible anyway, and depending on how alert the base already is, your weapons are pretty much pointless unless you already have heavy wepaons to use against fortified positions).

In the end, most of these home made guns will be abandoned for modern army equipment anyway. Why use a single shot revolver against an enemy armed with modern assault rifles with homing ammunition, that can shoot around corners, and might be almost 100% accurate? What if by then most elite infantry is using exo skeletons which allow for REAL body armour?

Why not use the army issue assault rifle with armour piercing ammunition when you have access to it. Or the Abrahams tank for that matter.

So your home guns would be of tiny use in the starting phase of an uprising, where personal sacrifice will be much more important than any pea-shooter gun you can bring to the fight. They would quickly need to be abandoned as your partisans hopefully would become more professional at their tasks and better equipped from raided military equipment.

in 2015 you CAN back down from a right given to you 150 years ago at least a little bit when it makes sense

I think there's already been steps for that, in the major gun bans/regulations on record (The big ones being 1934 NFA and 1986 FOPA/Houghes). The problem is that neither one of those had any compromises that are followed by the states. The NRA actually didn't challenge those as well (And there's corruption in the NRA where board members bought tons of pre-1986 machineguns, and then agreed to the ban only if their guns weren't included. They then sold those guns for 20 times their original value, with some being worth $170,000~ today still in their hands).

The problem is that most gun regulations aren't really compromises, they're "Ban assault weapons", "Ban standard magazines", "Ban gun show sales without NICS" without anything given in return. I gave some pretty fair compromises above in this thread, which really both sides should be for because they restrict criminals from positioning themselves for crime, while also Repealing state-specific regulations that hamper the legal gun owners.

For example,

remove the need for pistol purchase permits being needed in certain states (Pistol purchase permit is separate from a concealed carry permit), but make straw purchasers criminally responsible if their guns are used in crimes.

I don't see why anyone would be against this compromise on either side of the aisle.

See, I am really not in a position to argue about what the US states did or did not do right in the past or currently as I am by no means informed enough about the matter.

I can relate to feeling of having stupid and pointless weapon laws though... in switzerland we have the "forbidden/Banned weapons" category.

Now, you would expect assault rifles, machine guns, heavier weapons to fall under this category, right?

Wide off the mark. Automatic weapons are actually allowed as normal as long as the automatic firemode is disabled mechanically, and I don't know of any restriction on caliber (Apart from the law only allowing private persons to posses gun armed vehicles or infantry guns if the guns where made unusable by drilling a hole into the barrel).

What is forbidden is a mishmash of small stabbing and blunt weapons used by teenagers to primarly hurt themselves. Nunchacks, butterfly knives, stuff like that. Now, for martial artists these laws are a HUGE pain in the butt, as you now are carrying around a banned weapon to training and back twice a week, and if you get stopped by police on your way, your are in a legal grey area because not only are exceptions to "banned weapons" not really well defined, they are also badly communicated, leaving it to dojos and martial artists to do the legal legwork (Most will just take the risk and trust on police officers generally being martial artists themselves).

Kinda ironic when weapons like the nunchacku came up with Japan banning swords back in the days, and now Nunchackus get banned in switzerland where every second male person between 20 and 35 has an assault rifle at home, totally legal.

And do not get me started on the fact that an untrained person trying to use a nuchacku is more prone to hurt themselves than anyone else... while guns, being pretty much point and click in comparison, might be regulated, but are far from banned.

Then there are the less ridicolous, still kinda awkward rules about knive sizes. Knives/Daggers with a blade length of up to 30cm/12" are banned in switzerland. Which kinda makes sense, at about 15-16" daggers become so long that they get hard to conceal and carry around. Still, the difference between a dagger and a kitchen knife is kinda a moot point in a day and age where almost nobody wears body armour (and about the only advantage of a weapon made out of weapongrade steel is that it might pierce armour, apart from the fact a low quality tool knife might actually also break when hitting a bone), and I kinda was amazed how effortlessly I was able to import parrying daggers (which tend to be dangerously close to the limit) from the UK back in the day when I collected rennaissance swords. These where not sharp weapons, but made from real weapongrade steel, so could be pretty dangerous weapons if sharpened.

Why exactly customs did wave my daggers through when one or the other might have been 11,5" inches instead of 12" I don't know. I can only guess that someone actually used their brain there instead of the ruler, to my favor

Anyway, I am all for reasonable weapon laws that actually take into account what legimitate reasons weapons can be used for, use common sense vs. strict adherence to wording to determine when a law should be enforced and when not, and actually try to target people that do abuse these laws to use weapons outside of the allowed use cases.

There is no point in trying to defend a dogmatic viewpoint on either side when the result is a stalemate that will benefit no one.

So... what exactly is it with Assad that makes him such a particularly bad guy? After all, he (and all his buddies and family members in the government) has been rightfully elected, and elected again. And their fathers before them. The people may not be happy with one or the other thing (and yes, I am aware that a tiny bit of corruption is going on), but they did elect them. Heck, I'm not happy with Merkel either. But that's just bad luck for me.

Bombing his own people would be my point #1...

But to be fair, just as with the Ukrainian conflict, this has evolved into a hairball of openly or less openly involved parties that it is kinda hard to say who is fighting whom.

I don't believe the full propaganda of western media, but I am pretty sure by now that with all the sources that confirmed it, we at least know that Assad was using violence against civilians, which to me is a no-go for any regime.

And I would say an election in a dictatorship is worth as much as the word of a politician in western countries... nothing at all :P

It might ACTUALLY be true that 90% of that 99% did vote for him. And they ACTUALLY might have voted for him out of their free will. Maybe there was no better option? Maybe before he went all medieval on his own people, he made some political decisions that did satisfy part of the population?

After all, Syria wasn't the worst country to live in in the region for many years, in general people were living in relative good conditions and at least the government was stable, if not democratic. For many people in more regions of the world than we think, that is worth MUCH more than what westerners call "freedom" (like we would have real freedom in western democratic countries).

But, at least IMO that has all become a moot point when Assad decided to use violence to suppress an uprising instead of trying to swindle his way out by promising reforms and maybe even making some of this promises true. It's not like many regimes in the region would have reacted differently... it is just that he completly misjudged his own power vs. his own people, and getting into a situation where he was getting vulnerable (as opposed to other countries that treat their population just as badly, but can keep up the charade of a "peaceful" or "demcratic" country).

He might be able to hold on to his power in a small part of the ruins of the old Syria when the dust settles thanks to russian help. If he wants to reconquer all of Syria he might face international opposition now that a good portion of the syrian population has "spoken" by taking up weapons against Assad. And clearly, he can forget being president again over all Syrians even if he can reclaim the country... most of the people will have fled the country by then.

To me, what makes him a bad guy is the fact that he would rather take his own people with him into the grave than to step back and make concessions, let alone step down from his office.

If the hypothetical future US government needs to be removed, [...] home-defense guns are useless (paraphrased)

Well...

History seems to disagree.

The cautiously low minimum is 108k, not 500k. The difference in injury rate between armed resistance and no resistance is negligible according to the study. That is, there is a very slightly lower chance of injury if you resist with a gun than if you hadn't resisted at all. That hardly seems like a glowing indorcement when you consider how many innocent lives are lost due to the prevalence of guns.

Still, even if you take 108k, or even 54k, that's a very high number compared to gun deaths

firearms (excluding BB and pellet guns) were used in 84,258 nonfatal injuries (26.65 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) and 11,208 deaths by homicide (3.5 per 100,000), 21,175 by suicide with a firearm, 505 deaths due to accidental discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent"

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

Remember, those statistics include justified killings as well, and (I think? Can't find info) cases that are unresolved and may be proven justified.

Not resisting is giving into the crime. You're expecting us to literally just let criminals get away with it?

Page 245.

Having read the law, I think it's appropriate.

Provided further, That none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control:

It doesn't say they can't publish statistical truths or anything like that, they simply can't promote gun control. It functionally just means they need to take an impartial view. They made a self-imposed ban to adhere to that.

In other words, they can publish the statistics I posted above, but they can't say "We can reduce these deaths by banning handguns". Federal funds should never be used to sway opinion in partisan topics like that.

Do you have any links to statements from CDC researchers or administrators backing up your claim that they felt the appropriate response to potential bias was to do no more research?

No, they didn't publically address it, it seems.

CDC spokesman Tom Skinner would not address directly the NRA’s critique. In a written statement, he said: “CDC is committed 24/7 to prevent violence and injuries and reduce their consequences in an effort to make the U.S. more healthy and safe.”

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/cdc-politics-affected-gun-violence-research/nTZnf/

Scientists, especially professional researchers, don't shut down research altogether forever because they're concerned about biases. They address them as best they can, and when research is published others assess how well they did.

That's what happened, is it not? They did research previously, and the NRA took issue with bias that was found. Congress cut funding for it, and the CDC banned themselves from continuing research without rebuking the bias allegations. It's not like the CDC was trying to do a first study of it, and the NRA killed it.

It's interesting to note that every study or statistic anyone has posted that suggests guns might be a problem you decry as biased and totally unreliable or trot out "correlation is not causation", but a result that suggests neutral or positive impacts from guns... gold! Science shows guns are awesome and safe.

Not really. There's obviously research showing that more guns in the illegal market causes more shootings, as well as research showing that more legal guns leads to more domestic violence, with clear nonbiased information to support those positions.

My argument is simply that the positive benefit from having more legal guns outweighs the negatives. The other position is the opposite, that there's positives and negatives, and the negatives outweigh the positives. Both arguments are based on personal beliefs and priorities, and neither side is really "correct". I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone sane that thinks guns have had no negative impact on anyone's life, or anyone who thinks that guns have never had a positive impact anywhere.

So yeah, I stand by my argument that it's a nirvana fallacy.

Ok then, I'll clarify my point. There's no causal relationship for or against gun control.

Obserrve this chart

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6345a10.htm

Obviously states with low gun control are on top, so it must be guns! But, that's not how it works. Suicide is a mental problem, frequently caused by isolation (physical or social/mental). States with low population density top the list.

Then there's receptiveness to psyciatric care, and income to factor in. It can't be proven one way or the other if a gun ban would reduce suicides, because it's a theoretical. So, for a data point to compare on, suicide rates have remained pretty much the same throughout the years despite changing gun climates (handgun bans in cities etc)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Suicide-deaths-per-100000-trend.jpg

What does that mean? Nothing, because there's too many factors to tell.

Now, 50% of suicides in the USA are from guns, but you have to realize that makes sense, because guns are a sure way to accomplish it. Without guns, people might just use whatever's the next easiest thing to use if they don't have access to a gun, as gun laws changing has had no affect on suicide rate. However, that can't be proven one way or the other, because correlation is not causation.

Of course, I'm sure people have decided to suicide on a whim and shot themselves who maybe wouldn't have gone out to get pills to overdose on, because having a gun is more accessible, however, I think that's in the minority considering our suicide rate isn't too high and I'd expect that to be much more common with how many guns are in the USA if that was a large factor.

The fact that this can happen shouldn't mean I should have to lose some rights as a result of their untreated depression, it means that there was a breakdown in their social wellbeing that wasn't properly diagnosed or noticed by their friends/family.

The USA's suicide rate is only 1.0 per 100k different then Swedens, which is usually championed for their educational and social programs, so explain to me why this is a major issue for us.

Right, some aren't IS; some are Al Qaeda.

Excuse you, they're called Al Nusra, so we can support them now Honestly, the FSA, Assad, ISIS, Al Nusra, Kurds, Yazidis have all done attrocities at some point, if we wanted to put an end to the regime who did the most, we'd be bombing North Korea right now.

Syria's an important geopolitical place, We want to impose our will on it, Russia wants to impose theirs, and is willing to go farther than us, it's really just that simple. We wouldn't care in the slightest if ISIS was in Sub-Saharan Africa.

I do agree with ChaosEngine that there is a fallacy in the argument. I've even heard arguments that say that criminals will still find a way to get guns, therefore gun control is pointless as it doesn't let the average person get guns.

The argument is that allowing the average citizen to get guns gives more of a benefit then the negatives of some criminals getting guns (Illegally because criminals can't own guns already).

Sure there's background checks in the US, but I think we need to expand this process a bit more.

How would you suggest expanding it? The existing NICS check is very comprehensive unless there's cases of human errors.