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

[MaverickNH]

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.

 

[whatluck]

no

 

[HARRYM]

What would Karl Marx say?

 

[Woodstone]

Shall not be infringed.

 

[tbk5]

No

 

[bigben111435]

Nope.
if you cant even hurt yourself, how you gonna hurt others?

 

[HARRYM]

Nope.
if you cant even hurt yourself, how you gonna hurt others?

Edgy...but I like it.....

 

[SgtHal75]

No. But I guess it could depend on the case. Let’s say a 22 year old kid who has never had a girlfriend before tries to commit suicide by swallowing pills because his 1st ever girlfriend broke up with him. He gets treatment and goes on to crush it and he’s now 30 and wants to protect himself, family and property and shoot 3 gun on the weekends. He ABSOLUTILY should be able to own a gun.

Now, let’s say a young 28 year old airline pilot tries to crash the plane and take everybody with him for whatever reason but his mass murder/suicide mission fails and everybody lives then YES, no guns for you. Sorry but if you have no regard for anybodies life and try to take ppl with you then you shouldn’t be able to have a butter knife in the kitchen.

There is a very special place many leagues under hell that is reserved for ppl who commit suicide and purposely take ppl with them, especially a parent who takes the kids with them.

 

[LakeTrout]

No. They should not lose their rights.

 

[Asaltweapon]

No.

 

[LakeTrout]

No. But I guess it could depend on the case. Let’s say a 22 year old kid who has never had a girlfriend before tries to commit suicide by swallowing pills because his 1st ever girlfriend broke up with him. He gets treatment and goes on to crush it and he’s now 30 and wants to protect himself, family and property and shoot 3 gun on the weekends. He ABSOLUTILY should be able to own a gun.

Now, let’s say a young 28 year old airline pilot tries to crash the plane and take everybody with him for whatever reason but his mass murder/suicide mission fails and everybody lives then YES, no guns for you. Sorry but if you have no regard for anybodies life and try to take ppl with you then you shouldn’t be able to have a butter knife in the kitchen.

There is a very special place many leagues under hell that is reserved for ppl who commit suicide and purposely take ppl with them, especially a parent who takes the kids with them.

Someone who attempts mass murder shouldn't have a kitchen. they should be in jail. No need to have a law that takes their gun rights away. If we as a society are doing our jobs, attempted mass murderers won't see the light of day to be anywhere near a gun, fertilizer, fuel, a car, or any other means to commit mass murder. Because those other means have proven as effective and sometimes more effective than having a gun. We better not think that taking guns away is going to stop mass murderers from mass murdering.

 

[SgtHal75]

Someone who attempts mass murder shouldn't have a kitchen. they should be in jail. No need to have a law that takes their gun rights away. If we as a society are doing our jobs, attempted mass murderers won't see the light of day to be anywhere near a gun, fertilizer, fuel, a car, or any other means to commit mass murder. Because those other means have proven as effective and sometimes more effective than having a gun. We better not think that taking guns away is going to stop mass murderers from mass murdering.

Those were loose examples because I think it’s a little bit more grey than just “NO”.

Here’s a little better example, let me know what you think:

A guy is in a temporary crisis and pulls out a gun to commit suicide in front of ppl. They are able to wrestle the gun away from him, a few shots go off but nobody is hit. Should this person be able to have a gun in the future?

Not trying to set you up, just participating in a good thread topic.

 

[CATI]

You should not be infringed unless you are at that moment in prison or committed.
If you are on the street you should have all the rights

 

[greencobra]

some of my best friends are suicidal...

 

[safetyfirst2125]

If a gun owner “attempts” suicide but fails, he’s doing it wrong, or isn’t actually suicidal.

Until next time…..

 

[LakeTrout]

Those were loose examples because I think it’s a little bit more grey than just “NO”.

Here’s a little better example, let me know what you think:

A guy is in a temporary crisis and pulls out a gun to commit suicide in front of ppl. They are able to wrestle the gun away from him, a few shots go off but nobody is hit. Should this person be able to have a gun in the future?

Not trying to set you up, just participating in a good thread topic.

I like the example. My position is if someone is deemed to be a current danger to society, they should be removed from it. If someone is not, then they should have all of their rights.

But to speak to your specific scenario, yes I think that person should be able to have a gun in the future. Just like I think someone who tries to OD on sleeping pills and booze, should not be banned from alcohol or sleeping pills in the future.

We actually do not have a provision to ban anyone from any other means of suicide, simply because they've attempted by those means. Not that I am aware of. The only thing we ban people from owning, if they've attempted suicide with it, would be a firearm (in certain jurisdictions that might find the person unsuitable thereafter). I think that is telling. It tells me that its less about preventing suicide and more about taking guns away from citizens.

I think if we want someone to be less-suicidal, taking their rights away permanently is probably a poor start toward that goal.

 

[MAGA99]

NO

 

[Chevy 2 65]

No

 

[Whutmeworry]

No.

 

[SgtHal75]

I like the example. My position is if someone is deemed to be a current danger to society, they should be removed from it. If someone is not, then they should have all of their rights.

But to speak to your specific scenario, yes I think that person should be able to have a gun in the future. Just like I think someone who tries to OD on sleeping pills and booze, should not be banned from alcohol or sleeping pills in the future.

We actually do not have a provision to ban anyone from any other means of suicide, simply because they've attempted by those means. Not that I am aware of. The only thing we ban people from owning, if they've attempted suicide with it, would be a firearm (in certain jurisdictions that might find the person unsuitable thereafter). I think that is telling. It tells me that its less about preventing suicide and more about taking guns away from citizens.

I think if we want someone to be less-suicidal, taking their rights away permanently is probably a poor start toward that goal.

Good post. This is definetly a sitting at the bar thread

I think if someone wants to off themselves then they are going to do it no matter what. Keeping them from a gun just makes them find another exit strategy.

 

[drgrant]

No. But I guess it could depend on the case. Let’s say a 22 year old kid who has never had a girlfriend before tries to commit suicide by swallowing pills because his 1st ever girlfriend broke up with him. He gets treatment and goes on to crush it and he’s now 30 and wants to protect himself, family and property and shoot 3 gun on the weekends. He ABSOLUTILY should be able to own a gun.

Now, let’s say a young 28 year old airline pilot tries to crash the plane and take everybody with him for whatever reason but his mass murder/suicide mission fails and everybody lives then YES, no guns for you. Sorry but if you have no regard for anybodies life and try to take ppl with you then you shouldn’t be able to have a butter knife in the kitchen.

There is a very special place many leagues under hell that is reserved for ppl who commit suicide and purposely take ppl with them, especially a parent who takes the kids with them.

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.

 

[namedpipes]

No. But I guess it could depend on the case. Let’s say a 22 year old kid who has never had a girlfriend before tries to commit suicide by swallowing pills because his 1st ever girlfriend broke up with him. He gets treatment and goes on to crush it and he’s now 30 and wants to protect himself, family and property and shoot 3 gun on the weekends. He ABSOLUTILY should be able to own a gun.

Now, let’s say a young 28 year old airline pilot tries to crash the plane and take everybody with him for whatever reason but his mass murder/suicide mission fails and everybody lives then YES, no guns for you. Sorry but if you have no regard for anybodies life and try to take ppl with you then you shouldn’t be able to have a butter knife in the kitchen.

There is a very special place many leagues under hell that is reserved for ppl who commit suicide and purposely take ppl with them, especially a parent who takes the kids with them.

Your 28 yo pilot not only tried to commit suicide but attempted premeditated murder of 150+ people. Set aside the suicide attempt, he still committed a heinous crime and should be removed from society, if not forever, for a very long time.

Set aside the suicide element from both stories and it's clear the pilot should have the proverbial fork stuck in him and the lovestruck lad should not.

 

[42!]

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.

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.

 

[Picton]

They should lose their 2A rights.

As soon as they lose their 1A, 3A, 4A, 5A, 6A, 7A, 8A, 9A, and 10A rights.

So... nope.

 

[Garys]

It doesn't matter. People who really want to kill themselves will kill themselves. People who want attention will pick none lethal means to do so.

Take their guns, don't take their guns, it won't change a thing.

 

[SgtHal75]

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.

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



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

 

[Picton]

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??

Who's that?

 

[SgtHal75]

Who's that?

The suicidal German kid who hid his mental illness from Lufthansa. He was a co-pilot and locked the cockpit when the pilot went to go take a piss. He put the plane into a slow descent and crashed into the mountains taking everybody onboard with him. His doctors recommended he not fly because of his suicidal condition.

 

[Picton]

The suicidal German kid who hid his mental illness from Lufthansa. He was a co-pilot and locked the cockpit when the pilot went to go take a piss. He put the plane into a slow descent and crashed into the mountains taking everybody onboard with him. His doctors recommended he not fly because of his suicidal condition.

Thanks. I'm not an expert in young men who wear scarves in Sausalito, if you catch my drift.

I'd assume, to answer your question, that if he'd survived? He'd have either been jailed or involuntarily committed, either of which DOES lose you your 2A rights.

So I guess yes? I think my point is that a free man, at liberty, ought to retain his 2A rights pretty much no matter what. If he loses them, it should go along with a due-process decision that he's too unsafe to be out in society at all.

 

[Coda]

NO....

This is like red flag laws. You have a depressed person that may be suicidal. You take that person's guns away.......... Now you have a person that is even more depressed and more suicidal.

Watching all your well cared for guns recklessly thrown in the back of a police car inn't exactly an antidepressant.

There are other ways gun owners can commit suicide. An old friend of mine that I grew up with had a large gun collection. He was depressed and took his own life. No guns involved, he laid down in the bed of his P/U in the garage after starting the engine with the garage door closed.

These anti-gun actions just make things worse in terms of someones mental state.