Should People Who Attempt Suicide Lose Second Amendment Rights, and, If So, for How Long?

[drgrant]

Wrong. 2nd example absolutily is suicide….and mass murder. Remember this guy….

View attachment 727853

Does he keep his gun rights if he magically survives the plane crash??

The guy committed mass murder. The fact that he killed himself in the process is basically irrelevant.

If he survived somehow he would still be convicted of murder, or attempted murder of X persons. One would hope the guy rots in jail forever, making the whole "taking his rights away"
thing pretty irrelevant, suicidal or whatever doesnt' really matter at that point. It shouldn't matter. If you commit an act that harms someone else or do so where a person would reasonably expect causing physical harm to someone else, you've committed a violent crime.

A great analog- look at the shoe bomber, even though he completely failed, survived, and everyone survived that guy is f***ed forever, he's got multiple life sentences, no parole dies in a hole somewhere in prison. Worrying about his rights as "someone who was suicidal" doesnt mean much at that point because he's a ward of the state/inmate for the rest of his life and by proxy has almost no rights.

You're basically creating a fake problem/fake dilemma here.

 

[SFC13557]

Interesting question, depends on situation.

 

[paul73]

What would Karl Marx say?

people has no rights nor should have any rights.
you exist to serve the collective and everything else is secondary to that task.

on a serious tone - all societies have certain ways to self-regulate the amounts of typically allowed freedoms. right now it seems to be shrinking among all boundaries. how far will it go - who knows.

 

[SgtHal75]

The guy committed mass murder. The fact that he killed himself in the process is basically irrelevant.

If he survived somehow he would still be convicted of murder, or attempted murder of X persons. One would hope the guy rots in jail forever, making the whole "taking his rights away"
thing pretty irrelevant, suicidal or whatever doesnt' really matter at that point. It shouldn't matter. If you commit an act that harms someone else or do so where a person would reasonably expect causing physical harm to someone else, you've committed a violent crime.

A great analog- look at the shoe bomber, even though he completely failed, survived, and everyone survived that guy is f***ed forever, he's got multiple life sentences, no parole dies in a hole somewhere in prison. Worrying about his rights as "someone who was suicidal" doesnt mean much at that point because he's a ward of the state/inmate for the rest of his life and by proxy has almost no rights.

You're basically creating a fake problem/fake dilemma here.

Haha , whatever Doc

I’m not creating anything, I’m participating in a thread that’s a good subject to talk about.

Don’t like my examples? Roger.

You’re so much smarter than everybody here please give us some examples or opinions. The shoe bomber was a terrorist not somebody suicidal from a mental health crisis.

 

[drgrant]

You’re so much smarter than everybody here please give us some examples or opinions. The show bomber was a terrorist not somebody suicidal from a mental health crisis.

Doesn't matter, you try to kill 200 something people or whatever it was, if you survive and you get caught doing it the motive will be irrelevant, it might change whether you are in a looney
bin or a prison though, maybe. But either is irrelevant WRT restoration of rights if you're gonna be stuck there.

Regardless the point stands, shit like "prohibited person" and other extrajudicial punishment shouldn't exist. A person should either be free or some sort of ward or inmate of the
state. In between faggotry like "prohibited person" or "domestic violence restraining orders + lautenberg" need to get f***ed and not exist. A person is either a threat or they're
not. This american feel good faggotry of "oh, so wah luh, becuz we predjuced against this guy were going to f*** him/her up the ass for the rest of their life with a pariah classification, one that we don't even have to justify under due process of law, nor will the state be forced to bear the burden of ensuring compliance on (for example, parole). f*** that shit. It's like a
free bingo square for the state to f*** someones life up with. (and even if a judge wanted to, they can't make those things non disabling unless they play a lot of games).

IMHO the construct of a prohibited person shouldn't exist. You're either in a box, on parole, or similar state directed observation. Punishments should be explicitly laid out in a conviction or a court order, and not exist in an extrajudicial fashion. Extrajudicial punishment is dog shit.

 

[Garys]

People who are suicidal often are also homicidal. Which is why it's often dangerous to deal with them.

The guy committed mass murder. The fact that he killed himself in the process is basically irrelevant.

If he survived somehow he would still be convicted of murder, or attempted murder of X persons. One would hope the guy rots in jail forever, making the whole "taking his rights away"
thing pretty irrelevant, suicidal or whatever doesnt' really matter at that point. It shouldn't matter. If you commit an act that harms someone else or do so where a person would reasonably expect causing physical harm to someone else, you've committed a violent crime.

A great analog- look at the shoe bomber, even though he completely failed, survived, and everyone survived that guy is f***ed forever, he's got multiple life sentences, no parole dies in a hole somewhere in prison. Worrying about his rights as "someone who was suicidal" doesnt mean much at that point because he's a ward of the state/inmate for the rest of his life and by proxy has almost no rights.

You're basically creating a fake problem/fake dilemma here.

 

[TayNinh_66]

Should People Who Attempt Suicide Lose Second Amendment Rights, and, If So, for How Long?

An interesting decision Wednesday by N.Y. trial court judge Thomas Marcelle (Albany County), Hines v. Doe: Doe lives in terrible...

reason.com

This guy laid himself down in a cemetery to die of hypothermia, the cops found him and four shrinks said he wasn’t mentally ill, prescribed no meds and didn’t involuntarily commit him or hold him. The judge said he keeps his guns.

I agree with the courts decision. But.... what if he slashed his wrists or was holding a gun to his head? Those 4 shrinks might have involuntarily committed him as a danger to himself or others. (Bear in mind that anyone who still has a tenuous connection with reality will sign the voluntary commitment papers and the hospitalization will never show up on any state or federal databases.)

 

[cams]

 

[paul73]

View attachment 728261

all that is a never-ending conversation about how many and what percentage of factual freedom and so-called 'rights' should person be forfeited for any anti-social behavior, or for anything that is perceived or presented as such behavior.
in an ideal world the answer would be - none, never. but we are not in the ideal world, and our sense of self-preservation dictates to enforce our will upon those whom we perceive as dangerous and unstable. and once you begin - you will end up as a great britain is these days, pretty much, as it to have any middle ground there it needs to be a very strong historical precedence in the society to factually tolerate certain level of danger around - something that this society here in states does not have today, at all.

 

[northny]

If adjudicated not to be nuts, then no. But if they want to remove his firearms then he must also lose….
car keys,
all knives including kitchen,
all pharmaceuticals including OTC,
all power tools,
all gas or electric motors
all ropes
all chairs and ladders
all……you see the absurdity here I’m sure

 

[42!]

View attachment 728261

Is it? or is attempted suicide illegal?

I've heard of people being taken into custody for attempted suicide, but never for successful suicide.

 

[cams]

Is it? or is attempted suicide illegal?

I've heard of people being taken into custody for attempted suicide, but never for successful suicide.

It’s art. Allegedly.

 

[StevieP]

Standard boilerplate response used for other proposed "red flag" laws:

So the ERPO bills take peoples' guns because "The person might be a threat to themselves or others."

Do they also take the person's cars, ropes, knives, baseball bats, or golf clubs? Do they take away the person's access to high places, or eliminate gravity? Do they take away the person's prescription drugs? Do they prevent people from buying pressure cookers and fireworks? Can they buy a gallon of gas? Can they still rent a UHaul truck?

Because there are many ways for people to hurt themselves or others beyond just guns.

Do they provide ANY counseling or other services to these ostensibly despondent people? Or just take away their guns, thereby PROVING that "they really are out to get them"?

Answer the questions honestly and it becomes evident pretty quick that these bills have nothing whatsoever to do with anyone's safety, and everything to do with just taking guns for the sake of taking guns.

 

[42!]

Standard boilerplate response used for other proposed "red flag" laws:

So the ERPO bills take peoples' guns because "The person might be a threat to themselves or others."

Do they also take the person's cars, ropes, knives, baseball bats, or golf clubs? Do they take away the person's access to high places, or eliminate gravity? Do they take away the person's prescription drugs? Do they prevent people from buying pressure cookers and fireworks? Can they buy a gallon of gas? Can they still rent a UHaul truck?

Because there are many ways for people to hurt themselves or others beyond just guns.

Do they provide ANY counseling or other services to these ostensibly despondent people? Or just take away their guns, thereby PROVING that "they really are out to get them"?

Answer the questions honestly and it becomes evident pretty quick that these bills have nothing whatsoever to do with anyone's safety, and everything to do with just taking guns for the sake of taking guns.

Yes please, pass a law eliminating gravity

 

[paul73]

pass a law eliminating gravity

gravity is highly illegal and racist - and therefore does not exist. those who would continue to deny it will be subject to fines and prosecution.

here - i did it, there is no more gravity.

 

[G4Y4HK]

Do doctors still have the power to strip you of your 2A rights? Go to your primary care office and your MD asks you "have you ever had any days in the past few months where you felt sad?" Answer yes or even maybe, bam, gunzzz gone!

 

[paul73]

Do doctors still have the power to strip you of your 2A rights? Go to your primary care office and your MD asks you "have you ever had any days in the past few months where you felt sad?" Answer yes or even maybe, bam, gunzzz gone!

and many more!
all it takes is just a bit of determination and collaboration between certain government agents. and all paths are open for success!

Involuntary Hospitalization of Primary Care Patients

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Brucewillis4316]

If adjudicated not to be nuts, then no. But if they want to remove his firearms then he must also lose….
car keys,
all knives including kitchen,
all pharmaceuticals including OTC,
all power tools,
all gas or electric motors
all ropes
all chairs and ladders
all……you see the absurdity here I’m sure

Please take away gravity from these dangerous scoundrels… that’s a joke, son.

 

[Agnotology]

I've never judged people for their decision to end their own life. Takes a lot of resolve to end things on your own terms. Your reasons are your own. You are the most qualified person to decide just how much you can muddle throw before you decide it's time to lay down.

So long as you don't take anyone else with you, I don't feel there should be a punishment for failure.

 

[GunCat]

Definite no.

It's my preferred way to check out, after all.

Besides, the VA said it was fine, since I'm only a threat to myself, and not anyone else.

 

[dgrafton]

The 2nd example really isn’t suicide. The mass murderer thing comes first lol……. 2nd guy should be in jail for the rest of his life so loss of rights is part and parcel of the sentence…. It’s simply not necessary to delineate extrajudicial punishment at that point.. “prohibited persons” needs to die a horrible death.

This can be complicated if you consider that a person should have the right to end their own life, but you also want to protect the mentally ill.
There are certainly legitimate reasons someone would want to kill themselves, maybe they face a slow painful death that will be a burdan on their family and consume the hard earned inheritance, with no chance of surviving. In this case, as with what the OP presented, the person is NOT mentally ill. In that case, no they should not lose their rights. We have to accept that they will likely try until they succeed. We should focus on finding an honerable and peceful way for them to leave this life.

On the other hand. Say those 4 shrinks conclude that he is mentally ill. Then yes, after a hearing, a judge can suspend his rights, and this should include confinement and treatment. After all if he's mentally ill to the point of being a danger, then he should not be walking the streets. But only until his mental illness is no longer a threat. Then all rights must be restored. I might be ok with a 5 year grace period before allowing access to weapons (not just guns), because relapses are common.

So the answer is a definitive depends.

Define weapon

 

[42!]

Define weapon

my opening line "This can be complicated". The reality is anything can be a weapon, but obviously that definition doesn't work. Given the scenario in which I used "weapons", some line would need to be established that fits the situation.

One of the most important things to learn in this world is there are no absolutes. Not in anything except ideas and extremism. Reality is variable.

 

[HuntMaine]

If diagnosed as mentally I’ll or suicidal, indeed firearms should not be able to be accessed or owned. If in the future they are deemed to be of sound mind then ability to possess firearms should be reinstated.

 

[Picton]

If diagnosed as mentally I’ll..., indeed firearms should not be able to be accessed or owned.

Whoah.

That goes a whole lot farther than you probably realize it goes.

You're essentially saying everyone with, say, an anxiety disorder, even if it's easily treated and has nothing to do with firearms, should lose their consitutional rights.

Is that what you actually mean?

 

[42!]

Whoah.

That goes a whole lot farther than you probably realize it goes.

You're essentially saying everyone with, say, an anxiety disorder, even if it's easily treated and has nothing to do with firearms, should lose their consitutional rights.

Is that what you actually mean?

Perhaps he meant adjudicated mentally ill? That's a whole different thing.

 

[Picton]

Perhaps he meant adjudicated mentally ill? That's a whole different thing.

That's why I'm asking him to clarify.

Because if he's saying anyone with a mere diagnosis should lose their 2A rights, then he's a POS. If not, he simply needs to learn some vocab.

 

[HuntMaine]

Whoah.

That goes a whole lot farther than you probably realize it goes.

You're essentially saying everyone with, say, an anxiety disorder, even if it's easily treated and has nothing to do with firearms, should lose their consitutional rights.

Is that what you actually mean?

I mean mentally ill to the point where a doctor has to intervene and you are deemed unstable or committed where you are unable to control your actions. Sure there is the crown that will yell “not infringed!!” Or try to extend it to someone who is just under stress from a job etc. but there is a definitive line

 

[HuntMaine]

Perhaps he meant adjudicated mentally ill? That's a whole different thing.

My point

 

[GunCat]

My point

So, if a governing body, such as the VA determines (adjudicates) you to be a threat to yourself and unstable, and diagnoses you with a mental illness, but never commits you to a hospital and also decides you're competent with your finances...

Guns or no guns?

 

[Picton]

So, if a governing body, such as the VA determines (adjudicates) you to be a threat to yourself and unstable, and diagnoses you with a mental illness, but never commits you to a hospital and also decides you're competent with your finances...

Guns or no guns?

This.

It's really not as easy to find the

definitive line

as you think it is sometimes.