4 ms·

Nobody needs a gun to commit suicide. In countries where guns are less available, they use hanging or poison. Putting that aside, it’s not our role to forcibly

Nobody needs a gun to commit suicide. In countries where guns are less available, they use hanging or poison. Putting that aside, it’s not our role to forcibly limit the choices of healthy, responsible people just because some unhealthy, unresponsible people might make the wrong choices when given the freedom to do so. It’s not a societal-level tragedy if someone chooses to eliminate themselves. While it’s abhorrent to even consider, the fact is, there’s very likely a net economic/social gain. We don’t need to be protected from our own choices. We need to be protected from the authoritarian impulses of people who don’t think we’re equipped to make choices in the first place.

tifik 4y ago
> there’s very likely a net economic/social gain. I see your point, but I strongly disagree. Providing a suicidal person with the right resources to help them avoid suicide will (imo) yield a net gain over the rest of that persons life, as opposed to the gain from selling a gun and a bullet and giving him a quick out. One example that comes to might right away is Alan Turing. Whose contributions to modern society can hardly be overstated. And I know he didn't use a gun, I'm making a point about helping people out of depression, to oppose your opinion about it being beneficial to let them kill themselves.
- imgabe 4y ago
  Turing didn’t need help out of depression. He needed to NOT be persecuted, tortured, and mutilated by the state, furthering the point that people in power should not interfere with the rights of free people to go about their lives as they see fit as long as they aren’t hurting anyone else.
  - tifik 4y ago
    I agree, I didnt question the reason behind the suicide, I just wanted to point out that not all suicidal people can be labeled as burdens to society. > Live as they see fit So in your opinion that includes killing oneself, even in cases that could be avoided if access to appropriate help could be provided? (Not enforced, provided as an alternative option to suicide)
    - imgabe 4y ago
      We can provide resources for people who want help without taking away rights from other people who aren’t doing anything wrong. The original comment was about banning guns for everyone to prevent people from committing suicide. Following that logic, should we lock everyone in a cell under 24/7 suicide watch because it would prevent some people from committing suicide?
      - tifik 4y ago
        No, that's a strawman. You have to draw the line somewhere, and most of the civilized world agrees that not giving general public access to devices that can kill by twitching ones finger, is not above that line. Same as requiring people to wear seatbelts. Your fallacious argument aside though, you are correct, you can provide support resources without taking rights of others away, and in the US that is the case. Congrats. I will stay in a country where, if I am ever depressed, the support structures have a higher chance of saving me, because it will take more than moving my finger by 2mm to literally explode my head.
        imgabe 4y ago
        Restricting access to guns is not part of a support structure, it is a control structure. Maybe you appreciate the government controlling you in that way, most Americans are more independent minded. If you didn't want to be around guns, you can simply ... not own one. Many Americans don't, it's not like it's required.
        tifik 4y ago
        Where I live, I can own a gun if I want to, provided I pass rigorous psychological examination, and repeat it every few years. But because there is practically no guns on the streets, I dont feel the need to. Admittedly, it would be difficult to reconsile my opinions on gun ownership with the need for personal safety if I lived in the US. But yes, I absolutely do appreciate there being a control structure that prevents psychopaths from going to walmarts artillery section and shooting up a school every other week. Following the same fallacy you used previously, should we abolish all laws because everyone should be able to excercise their free will completely unrestricted?
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  Bringing up Turing to support the idea that the state should prevent people from taking their lives is beyond tone deaf. People asking the state to enforce their moral compass (which is basically what you're doing now) is what lead to the situation that Turing killed himself over.
  - tifik 4y ago
    > Providing a suicidal person with the right resources to help them avoid suicide Where in this sentence do you read anything about enforcing anything?
probably_wrong 4y ago
> it’s not our role to forcibly limit the choices of healthy, responsible people just because some unhealthy, unresponsible people might make the wrong choices when given the freedom to do so. I think your statement is missing the impact that the actions of the "unhealthy" have in others. Otherwise, there would be no reason to stop anyone from driving drunk, buying a couple kgs of uranium, or procuring flasks of Ebola.

tifik 4y ago

> there’s very likely a net economic/social gain. I see your point, but I strongly disagree. Providing a suicidal person with the right resources to help them avoid suicide will (imo) yield a net gain over the rest of that persons life, as opposed to the gain from selling a gun and a bullet and giving him a quick out. One example that comes to might right away is Alan Turing. Whose contributions to modern society can hardly be overstated. And I know he didn't use a gun, I'm making a point about helping people out of depression, to oppose your opinion about it being beneficial to let them kill themselves.

imgabe 4y ago
Turing didn’t need help out of depression. He needed to NOT be persecuted, tortured, and mutilated by the state, furthering the point that people in power should not interfere with the rights of free people to go about their lives as they see fit as long as they aren’t hurting anyone else.
- tifik 4y ago
  I agree, I didnt question the reason behind the suicide, I just wanted to point out that not all suicidal people can be labeled as burdens to society. > Live as they see fit So in your opinion that includes killing oneself, even in cases that could be avoided if access to appropriate help could be provided? (Not enforced, provided as an alternative option to suicide)
  - imgabe 4y ago
    We can provide resources for people who want help without taking away rights from other people who aren’t doing anything wrong. The original comment was about banning guns for everyone to prevent people from committing suicide. Following that logic, should we lock everyone in a cell under 24/7 suicide watch because it would prevent some people from committing suicide?
    - tifik 4y ago
      No, that's a strawman. You have to draw the line somewhere, and most of the civilized world agrees that not giving general public access to devices that can kill by twitching ones finger, is not above that line. Same as requiring people to wear seatbelts. Your fallacious argument aside though, you are correct, you can provide support resources without taking rights of others away, and in the US that is the case. Congrats. I will stay in a country where, if I am ever depressed, the support structures have a higher chance of saving me, because it will take more than moving my finger by 2mm to literally explode my head.
      - imgabe 4y ago
        Restricting access to guns is not part of a support structure, it is a control structure. Maybe you appreciate the government controlling you in that way, most Americans are more independent minded. If you didn't want to be around guns, you can simply ... not own one. Many Americans don't, it's not like it's required.
        tifik 4y ago
        Where I live, I can own a gun if I want to, provided I pass rigorous psychological examination, and repeat it every few years. But because there is practically no guns on the streets, I dont feel the need to. Admittedly, it would be difficult to reconsile my opinions on gun ownership with the need for personal safety if I lived in the US. But yes, I absolutely do appreciate there being a control structure that prevents psychopaths from going to walmarts artillery section and shooting up a school every other week. Following the same fallacy you used previously, should we abolish all laws because everyone should be able to excercise their free will completely unrestricted?
throwaway0a5e 4y ago
Bringing up Turing to support the idea that the state should prevent people from taking their lives is beyond tone deaf. People asking the state to enforce their moral compass (which is basically what you're doing now) is what lead to the situation that Turing killed himself over.
- tifik 4y ago
  > Providing a suicidal person with the right resources to help them avoid suicide Where in this sentence do you read anything about enforcing anything?

probably_wrong 4y ago

> it’s not our role to forcibly limit the choices of healthy, responsible people just because some unhealthy, unresponsible people might make the wrong choices when given the freedom to do so. I think your statement is missing the impact that the actions of the "unhealthy" have in others. Otherwise, there would be no reason to stop anyone from driving drunk, buying a couple kgs of uranium, or procuring flasks of Ebola.