The suicide component of the gun debate

[patrice]

59. Do you agree with my basic criteria: the best decisions are made by free individuals?

Let's say "best" means the truest, most authentic, so the most authentic decisions are free (not compulsed in any way) decisions made by free individuals.

Are there factors that affect how decisions are made by individuals? Are all decisions/choices equally free made by equally free individuals? Can some of those factors that affect a decision point amount to a compulsion that affects a decision in ways that are the opposite of how that same decision would be made if those compulsive factors were not what they are?

I'm not saying that any of that can, nor even necessarily should, be changed, but that all of it needs to be a part of any given decision in order for that decision to be a free as possible choice and not some form of systemic oppression, LEGAL or otherwise, oppression that, because the frame is artificially limited, is called the will of the individual, when, if these truths had been recognized, that person might not have come to that decision point in the particular manner under consideration and, even if s/he DID come to the same decision point, there would be others who DON'T (because the affecting factors are more authentically recognized) and that fact should be as valuable as the fact that any given person does come to that particular decision point and decides in whatever manner that s/he does decide.

I'm trying to tell you what my conditions for this suicide proposal to be legal would be. I won't be surprised if these criteria are ignored on the basis that there is nothing in the legal system that addresses what could/should have been, but then, not everything is valued by whether it is legal or not, even though it is assumed that systems can't process that fact and that they need to restrict themselves to legalities in order to function.