• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Suicide and the gun control debate

Status
Not open for further replies.
My wife and I got the news last week, an older man who had dated my wifes grandmother for a number of years committed suicide.

He was an older man who was in his early 80s. He did not have any children, and as far as I knew he had never married.

My wifes grandmother and the man had dated up until her death in 1999.

He had some health problems, had some trouble getting around, sold his house, sold all of his possessions and went into an assisted living center.

The man who killed himself and my wifes step-dad had been knowing each other for probably 30 years. He was friends with several family members on my wifes side.

His death will now be counted as a firearms related death. There is no designation for those who have reached a point in their lives when they no longer wish to live. So their deaths are added to the gun control debate.

Can we blame someone for not wanting to linger in pain, or wait for cancer to take their lives?
 
Last edited:
We can put an animal down to end it's suffering, it's considered the humane thing to do, but if we do it to another human it's considered murder.
 
It can not be both.

When the anti-gunners start yelling for more gun control they use a combined number of crime and suicide.

Facts are facts so yes this case is both.

How one interprets them is another discussion, but just because you don't like how someone interprets it doesn't mean you ignore the fact.
 
Facts are facts so yes this case is both.

How one interprets them is another discussion, but just because you don't like how someone interprets it doesn't mean you ignore the fact.

Suicide is a gun death, but shouldn't it be treated differently than someone killed in a drug war?
 
"assisted suicide" isn't ending your own life, it's having someone else murder you. There's a difference.
if someone prepares you a glass of barbituricide so that you can commit suicide, he's not murdering you, but he's assisting you. You make the free and final choice by drinking the glass, not by telling the guy to kill you (which would be euthanasia, still not a murder if legally recognized).

In Switzerland assisted suicide is legal and 2 associations do it privately.
Many brits and germans are subscribed to Dignitas. 21% of those who received assistance were not terminally ill apparently, they just wanted to die.

Suicide is a gun death, but shouldn't it be treated differently than someone killed in a drug war?
yes, but the issue is that those against gun control allegedly (I don't know if it's true, you said it) use the "firearm related deaths" as their statistics, while in reality they should use gun related accidents + gun murders, to exclude suicides.
This does not change the fact that this suicide is a gun death. The issue is if someone is using the wrong data to push his point, call them out on it.
 
Last edited:
Suicide not being legal is one of the funniest things ever. If that isn't bringing religion into politics I don't know what is.

It may stem from religious political views in the US but other secular nations in history (USSR of old and today's Russia, China,etc) have treated it the same. In the end it is a about an authoritarian institution (be it a religious establishment or government) deciding what the individual can and cannot do with their own lives. So of course many governments and religious institutions both end up on the same side of this debate because both benefit from the erosion of personal individualism when even government itself has usurped the role of religious authority in society.
 
Suicide is an inherent right and doctors should be allowed to prescribe anyone chemicals that will make death safe, quick, and painless.
 
if someone prepares you a glass of barbituricide so that you can commit suicide, he's not murdering you, but he's assisting you. You make the free and final choice by drinking the glass, not by telling the guy to kill you (which would be euthanasia, still not a murder if legally recognized).

In Switzerland assisted suicide is legal and 2 associations do it privately.
Many brits and germans are subscribed to Dignitas. 21% of those who received assistance were not terminally ill apparently, they just wanted to die.


yes, but the issue is that those against gun control allegedly (I don't know if it's true, you said it) use the "firearm related deaths" as their statistics, while in reality they should use gun related accidents + gun murders, to exclude suicides.
This does not change the fact that this suicide is a gun death. The issue is if someone is using the wrong data to push his point, call them out on it.

Here in the States some of the methods proposed for "assisted suicide" are more than making a drug cocktail available. I will agree that it wouldn't be murder, but more likely a mercy killing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top