Republican men seem massively troubled about their masculinity — and that’s literally causing death and suffering

  • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Then any old asshole could just lie and say their neighbor or family member or spouse is suicidal, and disarm them. Abusers absolutely will exploit that to subjugate their victims.

    And it’s not really moral to say those men shouldn’t be allowed to kill themselves if they want anyway. Do people have self-ownership or not? Yes or no?

    • abbotsbury@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Others could be injured in a firearm suicide, and someone still has to clean up the mess. Self-euthanasia is it’s own topic, but I think most could agree that the solution to assisted suicide isn’t allowing unstable people to own firearms.

      • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Any other solution would require getting permission from the state to die in some way or another, meaning you effectively don’t have a right to die on your terms.

        • abbotsbury@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I disagree, ropes are easy to find or make, and you only need a couple pounds of force to asphyxiate; people hang themselves from doorknobs and shit, it’s super reliable if you do it right.

          Allowing unstable people to own firearms is a danger to others, and would only increase impulsive suicides and messy survivors.

    • Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes we have self ownership but i would also want my family and friends to stop me if i got irrational for a moment and tried to burn down my house. I do believe we should have a right to euthanasia but if im not terminally ill i absolutely want my family to stop my from committing suicide in a moment of desperation.

      • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s your choice, sure, but not everyone’s, and forcing people to live is very, very much worse than death. I’ve witnessed it happen for myself. All suicide prevention is is denying someone else their autonomy, self-ownership, and rights so you can make yourself feel better. Even in crisis, people do not lose their rights.

        • Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes euthanasia is very logical, but allowing people to kill themselves in a moment of desperation is not. Sure, if there’s an argument that perpetual depression is a good reason for euthanasia, i buy that.

          But letting someone kill themselves because they got really drunk and really sad one night, for example is not “respecting self autonomy.”

    • Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      It comes down whether you find that having a gun is a fundamental right or something. I just don’t think it is. Yes, it’s a perfectly acceptable cost for a random acquaintance to make a fake complaint and get my gun taken. It would be only a mild inconvenience to have my gun taken away even permanently. I do like going to the range and shooting, it’s a fun sport for sure, but it’s not my identity.

      • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not just a fundamental right but the basis by which rights even can exist. Without access to violence, you cannot say no, and you cannot stop other people from doing whatever they want to you, meaning you are without rights without access to weaponry, namely guns.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Violence does not require firearms, nor would our pea shooters do anything to an Abrams or Bradley, or anything else slightly up armored. Unless you think this “fundamental right” includes anti-tank and anti-air weaponry, then the argument is moot. Homemade explosives will be much better for the fight than your “operator firearm” with no tactics training. Then, during the fight, there will be plenty of guns to be looted from those fighting you. Revolutions don’t require armed citizens. They never have. They require smart and inventive citizens who use gorilla tactics.

        • Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Idk what world you live in, but i say no all the time to people and i stop them from doing whatever they want to me all the time without resorting to violence, havent resorted to violence at all since i was teenager. If the cops want to arrest me, a gun won’t stop them either.