Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

nfe wrote:

Insurance is a more effective solution.

You have to be alive to collect that. Think less 'British Cat burglars' and more 'armed bandits'. The state police finally stepped in when they started murdering babies. No, not joking.

nfe wrote:

Does anyone, at all, claim that tighter restrictions on guns would stop people who illegally acquire weapons from attempting to illegally acquire them? A striking strawman, that.

I might point out that many posters have been claiming that tighter laws would have prevented this incident. My counter was that no, it wouldn't have, since he also was acquiring things that are very illegal. In this case, the only difference would have been where he bought them, and how much he spent.

Basically everything you've just written says the opposite

No it doesn't.

The point I'm making is that the USA is not unique in history in having an armed population, but other nations didn't have half the level of gun crime the USA has, early 20th century Britain being a classic example.

Even when the British population was heavily armed, most of our policemen were never armed with more than a sturdy club and a whistle.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:
"Guns don't kill people. People do." they are arguing that, if there were no guns in the US, the American people would still kill each other with the same frequency and enthusiasm.

That is quite an indictment of the American people - presented by people who proclaim themselves to be patriots.

Interestingly, in 1790 there were 462 gun deaths (murders, accidents, and suicides) at a time when the majority of the population had a firearm of some type. In 1800 there were 627. This ratio more or less continues as the population expands until about 1920. Then it explodes. Between 1920 and 2010 the number of gun deaths in the US tripled, despite the relative number of guns in the population decreased (ie fewer and fewer people owned guns).

So, here's a question then, what changed?

Growing pains, I think.

The US is still a young country working on ironing out the various wrinkles in their society - in essence figuring out what kind of society they want.
Politically and socially the country does seem to have a ways to go.

 Jadenim wrote:
Just caught up on this thread and I have two observations:

1) other than a couple of outliers this is the most civil and constructive gun control / US pol-REDACTED- thread I have seen in a long while, so good job everyone.

2) all of the discussion around gun control (here and elsewhere) focuses on the guns themselves, but I think a more practical place to start in tackling this problem would be with ammunition; simply put you can only get a mass shooting if you have hundreds of rounds to fire off. I would throw in the challenge to the legal gun owners here, if you're hunting, or defending your home from robbery or protecting your person, how much ammunition do you need? One magazine? Two? Less than a hundred rounds surely.

I think you raise a good point, but the answer is probably more complicated than you might realize.

If we look at your questions very narrowly, then in my (non-expert) opinion two magazines would almost always be enough for self-defense. Maybe something like 5-8 round magazines for intermediate and full-power rifles and shotguns and 12-15 round magazines for handguns and pistol caliber carbines. The second magazine is more to have a relatively quick way to fix certain magazine-related problems than for the extra rounds. I give total numbers of rounds in ranges because, like I said, I'm not expert and I don't know the exact number that would be sufficient 99% of the time. I was trying to give a high number for what is plausible. Most self-defense shootings probably have a much lower round count, and it's possible to think up scenarios where a lot more rounds would be necessary but they don't seem all that likely to me.

For hunting certain things a person would be highly unlikely to fire more than a handful of shots. For others, like small game and pests with high bag limits, it can actually be plausible to shoot quite a few rounds. Like you said though, it doesn't seem that likely to shoot more than a hundred rounds in a day except maybe in some unusual varmint/culling scenarios.

But that's just the number of rounds fired at an actual person or animal. Most rounds are never fired at anything alive, they're fired in practice. It's not that unusual to fire quite a few rounds in practice. In some classes hundreds of rounds might be fired in a day.

At what intervals do you think people should be able to buy ammo and how much should they be able to buy? My understanding is that most people who commit mass murders start thinking and planning long in advance. If a person buys a fifty-round box of ammo every other week they will have two hundred rounds in just a couple months, and that's just for one firearm. A lot of people own more than one gun. A lot of households have more than one gun owner. (Of course, there is a practical limit to how many guns a person can carry.) It is pretty easy to imagine a person accumulating hundreds of rounds in short order while only buying “practice” ammunition at a moderate rate.

While tracking who (legally) buys what ammunition might (theoretically) not be that difficult, I think you'd also have to address the stockpiling issue I mentioned above. Would people be required to turn in their spent brass? That could get pretty expensive to keep track of. It's also really easy to lose in the grass or snow or even when it just gets stepped on in the sand. It also mixes up with other people's brass at the firing range.

Would people who are going on a multi-day prarie dog hunt or class need to get a special permit to stockpile extra ammunition?

There's also the issue of recreational shooting, if you consider that a legitimate use of firearms. When .22 LR prices are reasonable I might plink a few hundred rounds on a nice afternoon. That cartridge commonly comes in boxes of hundreds of rounds as shooting a lot of shots of it is pretty normal. My family used to often go out and shoot clay pigeons on the weekends. It wasn't that unusual for us to shoot a hundred rounds of 12 gauge per person in a day (it was about the price of seeing a movie if you factored in food and drinks). Between me, my father and two brothers that four hundred rounds. Granted both .22 LR and bird shot, while definitely being no joke and nothing you want to accidentally shoot someone with, are probably some of the least effective rounds for a mass murderer to use. Maybe exceptions could be made for certain cartridges?

Shooting high round counts isn't limited to plinking with .22s and busting clays with birdshot, though. There are quite a few forms of competitive shooting where people will shoot a large number of rounds in one day. A lot of people shoot more practicing for competitions than actually in competitions. This isn't limited to shooting competitions where people shoot a lot of rounds quickly. People who are really into shooting very small targets and/or shooting at long distances will often shoot thousands of rounds a year.

There's also a financial and convenience aspect. Buying in bulk saves money. When buying a 900 round ammo can full of surplus ammunition saves you $0.08 per round compared to buying it in 20 round boxes it makes a significant difference in the end. Ammunition keeps indefinitely if stored properly, so it makes sense to buy a lot at once. It is convenient to have extra on hand as well, especially if you live in a rural place, so you don't have to run out to the store to buy it. There's also the issue of ammunition shortages (usually for stupid reasons). Having extra ammunition on hand can really help when your preferred cartridge is not available for over a year (or only available at scalper's prices).

Of course, I think a person could make a reasonable argument that recreational shooting should not be allowed if it comes at the cost of so many people being killed. Even the owning of firearms for self defense and hunting. I don't agree with that, but there is an argument to be made. If that's the case then the problems caused to firearm owners by caps on ammunition sales are largely inconsequential. However, if a person believes that a person should be able to own firearms for self-defense, hunting and/or recreation then it should be considered that meaningful limits to ammunition sales would probably cause a ton of problems for people trying to use firearms for reasonable purposes.

This isn't what you were asking, but if a person's goal was to try to ban most “modern” firearms then ammunition is actually one of the best chokepoints to go after. My understanding is that smokeless powder and primers are somewhat dangerous and difficult to make. (I personally haven't read into it past people saying not to do it, so I might be wrong). Firearms are pretty simple machines, but semi and fully-automatic weapons are somewhat dependent on having reasonably consistent and reliable ammunition. I'm not saying some criminal organizations wouldn't set up factories and start cranking it out, but it might be comparatively hard for some schmuck to make in his garage.

Wonder why people don't talk more about what truly matters here ; why that guy did this.

It's clear there is a lot of deflect from Fake News, and there is the fact president Trump himself was quite reserved on the matter while he wasn't that moderated when similar events with - let's say "browner" criminals - happened before, including at overseas.

Why did the murderer do that ? Why so many smokescreens ? Is it really how it is, now : spreading false information for personnal agendas/interests, and not caring anymore for the real reasons behind the event, even if it endangers national security once again ?

Forget about guns, guns didn't fire themselves, rent two rooms in a hotel and apparently set up this horrible tragedy in advance. It was the man behind the shooting who did that. We need to know what was the truth behind his despicable act, we can't afford to let it sink into speculations, Fake News and embarrassed silence.

Steelmage99 wrote:

Growing pains, I think.

The US is still a young country working on ironing out the various wrinkles in their society - in essence figuring out what kind of society they want.
Politically and socially the country does seem to have a ways to go.

My pet theory is WW1 started a trend toward desensitization to violence.

Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
If we look at your questions very narrowly, then in my (non-expert) opinion two magazines would almost always be enough for self-defense.

Eeeeh... Depends.

Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
A lot of people own more than one gun. A lot of households have more than one gun owner. (Of course, there is a practical limit to how many guns a person can carry.) It is pretty easy to imagine a person accumulating hundreds of rounds in short order while only buying “practice” ammunition at a moderate rate.

This also touches on the issue with a lot of people's thoughts on gun-control in the US. The sheer volume of firearms in play. Someone once said that if every US civil servant stopped doing whatever they were doing and just focused on collecting guns, it would take 25 years to disarm every American, working round the clock. And assuming that everyone just queued up and handed them in.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sarouan wrote:

Forget about guns, guns didn't fire themselves, rent two rooms in a hotel and apparently set up this horrible tragedy in advance. It was the man behind the shooting who did that. We need to know what was the truth behind his despicable act, we can't afford to let it sink into speculations, Fake News and embarrassed silence.

Because since he shot himself, we'll never really know. This seems to have come totally out of the blue for the people who knew him.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:


There's also a financial and convenience aspect. Buying in bulk saves money. When buying a 900 round ammo can full of surplus ammunition saves you $0.08 per round compared to buying it in 20 round boxes it makes a significant difference in the end. Ammunition keeps indefinitely if stored properly, so it makes sense to buy a lot at once. It is convenient to have extra on hand as well, especially if you live in a rural place, so you don't have to run out to the store to buy it. There's also the issue of ammunition shortages (usually for stupid reasons). Having extra ammunition on hand can really help when your preferred cartridge is not available for over a year (or only available at scalper's prices).

Everything is cheaper if you buy in bulk but some things have storage or purchasing limits for a reason.

My local gun shop is required to report every "suspicious" purchase of ammo (which you can't buy unless you have a license for a gun matching the caliber) and suspicious starts at everything above a box for anyone that's not a regular. I've probably been reported a few times when I purchased my first hundreds, because cops shoot at the same range as I do and checked if I was training for some competition or ranging in the sight for the hunting season.

Oh, and a halfway decent 30-06 starts at 2$ per round, and 9mm at over 1$

But if you ask me is a price worth paying for making it harder for the wrong kind of people to get their hands on a gun. The gun shop owner tells me every day he gets shady people asking on how to buy a gun, who never come back.

BaronIveagh wrote:

nfe wrote:

Insurance is a more effective solution.

You have to be alive to collect that. Think less 'British Cat burglars' and more 'armed bandits'. The state police finally stepped in when they started murdering babies. No, not joking.

I'll be keen to see the statistics that say 'tackling amed intruders with arms' is more likely to keep you alive than saying 'take what you like, I'll ring Direct Line tomorrow'.

BaronIveagh wrote:

nfe wrote:

Does anyone, at all, claim that tighter restrictions on guns would stop people who illegally acquire weapons from attempting to illegally acquire them? A striking strawman, that.

I might point out that many posters have been claiming that tighter laws would have prevented this incident. My counter was that no, it wouldn't have, since he also was acquiring things that are very illegal. In this case, the only difference would have been where he bought them, and how much he spent.

Quotes please. That said, tighter laws could well prevent incidents like this over time - long term reduced supply. That's not the same, at all, as claiming that tighter restrictions on guns would stop people who illegally acquire weapons from attempting to illegally acquire them, which was the strawman you were arguing against.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Basically everything you've just written says the opposite

No it doesn't.

The point I'm making is that the USA is not unique in history in having an armed population, but other nations didn't have half the level of gun crime the USA has, early 20th century Britain being a classic example.

Err, exactly. Giving a list of heavily armed populaces that haven't had the problems of the US supports there being something idiosyncratic about the US that leads to those problems.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Sarouan wrote:

Forget about guns, guns didn't fire themselves, rent two rooms in a hotel and apparently set up this horrible tragedy in advance. It was the man behind the shooting who did that. We need to know what was the truth behind his despicable act, we can't afford to let it sink into speculations, Fake News and embarrassed silence.

Because since he shot himself, we'll never really know. This seems to have come totally out of the blue for the people who knew him.

Which is why it's weird. Nothing come completely out of the blue - even when you get angry, that's because something makes you that way.

There was a reason here, it's a human who did this, not the Hand of God or Wrath of Nature.

Banning more guns won't make that reason disappear magically. As soons as there are reasons for a man to decide to do that kind of things, it will keep happening. Sure, restrictions to buy new guns will make it more difficult to gather such an arsenal, but it's not like the guns already owned by people will suddenly vanish all at once. There will still be guns to be bought and sold, and there will still be determined people to do their grim work.

nfe wrote:


Does anyone, at all, claim that tighter restrictions on guns would stop people who illegally acquire weapons from attempting to illegally acquire them? A striking strawman, that.

It should; presumably the vast majority of illegally acquired firearms were at some point illegal. It's not as if there will be many people making them at home, or smuggling them in. I suspect the most likely source of an illegal weapon is one that was bought legally and stolen/sold on. Therefore if you restrict the number of legal weapons on the market, you must also restrict the supply of illegal weapons, driving the price up if nothing else.


That said, the biggest problem seems to be mental health - the support for mental health issues in the US seems to be awful.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

Growing pains, I think.

The US is still a young country working on ironing out the various wrinkles in their society - in essence figuring out what kind of society they want.
Politically and socially the country does seem to have a ways to go.

My pet theory is WW1 started a trend toward desensitization to violence.

Not just WW1. There was also Prohibition, which have rise to the gangsters. Followed by Hollywood making tons of gangster and cowboy movies. Kids growing up playing Cops and Robbers or Cowboys and Indians. Guns became toys, not tools. To me, that's the real problem: not that guns exist, but how we perceive them.

 Sarouan wrote:

Banning more guns won't make that reason disappear magically...Sure, restrictions to buy new guns will make it more difficult to gather such an arsenal, but it's not like the guns already owned by people will suddenly vanish all at once.

It's really not difficult to get around that issue to a degree (with the long term in mind) with licensing - though it would require considerable (from a US perspective) regulation.

I don't get why people want guns at all. But I don't get why anyone wants a Ferrari either. And don't really care if people have either provided the chances of them harming someone else with them are controlled as much as is possible whilst still allowing people to use them.

If it was up to me:
Introduce training and testing for a license, (in addition to reasonable medical background checks).
Strict requirements for storage (safes/ammunition in separate safes) with random checks.
Have a points system for infringements that run up to lifetime bans.
No private sale other than through licensed firearms dealers. All sales to anyone without a licence results in lifetime ban for seller. All private sales not through a licensed dealer also result in lifetime ban for seller.

No, it doesn't take all the already illegal weapons away, but it stops currently legal weapons ending up moving into criminal hands. And if you really like guns, well, you can still have them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

nfe wrote:


Does anyone, at all, claim that tighter restrictions on guns would stop people who illegally acquire weapons from attempting to illegally acquire them? A striking strawman, that.

It should; presumably the vast majority of illegally acquired firearms were at some point illegal. It's not as if there will be many people making them at home, or smuggling them in. I suspect the most likely source of an illegal weapon is one that was bought legally and stolen/sold on. Therefore if you restrict the number of legal weapons on the market, you must also restrict the supply of illegal weapons, driving the price up if nothing else.

You're making a different point. Restricting the availability of legal weapons does indeed reduce the availability of illegal ones - but nobody claims that it'd stop people attempting to buy illegal weapons, which was the strawman I was tackling.

nfe wrote:

I'll be keen to see the statistics that say 'tackling armed intruders with arms' is more likely to keep you alive than saying 'take what you like, I'll ring Direct Line tomorrow'.

That would be an interesting statistic to have. The FBI, for example, tracks if persons resisted criminals in the commission of a crime, and by what means, but not if the ultimate outcome was in favor of the private person or the criminal, only if the citizen killed the criminal. So...

One interesting statistic is that California's knife and edged weapon killings tower over the rest of the country, so I might suggest that it might make killing harder to pull off, but if they want you dead badly enough to kill you, you're going to have a problem one way or another.

nfe wrote:

Quotes please. That said, tighter laws could well prevent incidents like this over time - long term reduced supply. That's not the same, at all, as claiming that tighter restrictions on guns would stop people who illegally acquire weapons from attempting to illegally acquire them, which was the strawman you were arguing against.

I'm prohibited by the mods from walls of text, so, no, not quoting every last person who's said that here, just scroll around, there's been about one per page.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

nfe wrote:

I'll be keen to see the statistics that say 'tackling armed intruders with arms' is more likely to keep you alive than saying 'take what you like, I'll ring Direct Line tomorrow'.

That would be an interesting statistic to have. The FBI, for example, tracks if persons resisted criminals in the commission of a crime, and by what means, but not if the ultimate outcome was in favor of the private person or the criminal, only if the citizen killed the criminal. So...

One interesting statistic is that California's knife and edged weapon killings tower over the rest of the country, so I might suggest that it might make killing harder to pull off, but if they want you dead badly enough to kill you, you're going to have a problem one way or another.

Certainly. I live in the most violent city in Europe (at least last time I checked) and we have severe knife problems. Lots more people survive attempted murders and near-manslaughter with knives than with guns, though. We also have pretty extreme restrictions on having knifes outside of your home and you're very likely to go to jail if you get in any boher with the police and have a knife on your person.

nfe wrote:

Quotes please. That said, tighter laws could well prevent incidents like this over time - long term reduced supply. That's not the same, at all, as claiming that tighter restrictions on guns would stop people who illegally acquire weapons from attempting to illegally acquire them, which was the strawman you were arguing against.

I'm prohibited by the mods from walls of text, so, no, not quoting every last person who's said that here, just scroll around, there's been about one per page.

I've read the thread. Don't recall one. You may be reading peoples' suggestions that reducing legal supplies of arms would in turn reduce supplies of illegal arms, or that restricting arms means less people have them already when they suffer a serious mental illness or find themselves in an extreme situation that makes them do something stupid, as suggestions that outlawing something stops people who are already crinimals from doing it? It sorta feels like you have that auto-response answer ready and it got trotted out regardless of no one actually making the point to which it relates. Pretty frequent habit from both sides on the gun debate - I suppose because both sides are so used to the repetitive nature of the discussion that they just throw out all the standard lines!

@Dakka Flakka Flame I appreciate there would be complexities to ammunition limitations and, as d-USA has pointed out, does nothing to stop suicides and individual murders that account for the majority of deaths, but it would be a first step.

The reason I brought it up, was I was mulling over the differences between the UK and the USA. As DINLT pointed out, 100-years ago there was very little restriction on guns in the UK and gun ownership and attitudes were similar to present day USA AFAIK (i.e. everyone had the right to own a weapon for personal defence). We did not change overnight, there were gradual, incremental, increases in restriction, which were accompanied with changes in societal attitudes. And it was a feedback loop, the more restrictions we had, the more people expected there to be effective restrictions.

So what would be the first step for the USA? As other's have noted, "just banning guns" is politically unacceptable and practically impossible. However there is room to differentiate between reasonable and unreasonable use and quantity of ammunition seemed like a logical place where an agreement might be possible.

The other factor in my thoughts is based upon the principle behind a lot of the restrictions in UK; giving time. Time for the assailant to reconsider their actions, time for law enforcement to respond. In the theoretical scenario where ammunition sales were restricted and someone had to spend months building up the quantity they needed to launch this kind of attack, that's months where they can come to their senses, months where their loved ones can raise the alarm, months when the store owners can notice "hey, Fred is sure buying a lot of rounds, but I never see him down the range".

If everyone can be sat on thousands of rounds, ready to go at a moments notice when they snap, there is no time.

In practical terms, yes you might need a lot of ammunition when practicing at a range, but does it all need to be kept at home? Would there not be room for bonded stores at ranges and gun clubs, where people could keep their extra ammunition?

There are lots of things that could be done to reduce the immediate availability of loaded weapons, but to do so depends on the willingness of US society to accept such restrictions. The NRA has for decade run a successful campaign to push any kind of restriction beyond the pale, and US society broadly supports the current status of gun law.

The question is whether this latest and very bloody massacre has done anything to shift public opinion, and you will need to wait months or years to find that out.

Two other points to consider:

1. The majority of suicides resulting from guns. Obviously, these are tragedies, but even if there were no guns in the USA, or on planet Earth, anybody who is prepared to shoot themselves would probably jump off a bridge or a cliff or use a knife or whatever. The absence of guns wouldn't change this sad statistic.

2. The USA has passed the point of no return on gun ownership IMO. I read somewhere that the USA's population is 330 million, and the estimated number of guns is also around the 330 million mark. Roughly, one gun for every American.

Even in the unlikely event the 2nd was repealed,no new guns were made, and even if there was an amnesty, and let's say 50% of guns were handed in and destroyed, that would still leave 150 million guns floating around

There would still be a gun problem.

And of course, you can never destroy the knowledge behind gun making...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Two other points to consider:

1. The majority of suicides resulting from guns. Obviously, these are tragedies, but even if there were no guns in the USA, or on planet Earth, anybody who is prepared to shoot themselves would probably jump off a bridge or a cliff or use a knife or whatever. The absence of guns wouldn't change this sad statistic.

Yes it would. We bring this up every time there's a gun thread; shooting yourself is a lot deadlier (and a lot more immediate) than trying to kill yourself with a knife. If someone tries to kill him- or herself with a gun, odds are it's going to be successful. Knives, overdoses, jumping from bridges etc. are less likely to result in death and thus gives a bigger chance of someone discovering the person in question and giving them the help they need.

If knives are just as effective at killing people as guns the need for guns for self-defense goes out the window, because you might as well use a knife, right?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

2. The USA has passed the point of no return on gun ownership IMO. I read somewhere that the USA's population is 330 million, and the estimated number of guns is also around the 330 million mark. Roughly, one gun for every American.

Even in the unlikely event the 2nd was repealed,no new guns were made, and even if there was an amnesty, and let's say 50% of guns were handed in and destroyed, that would still leave 150 million guns floating around

There would still be a gun problem.

And of course, you can never destroy the knowledge behind gun making...

On this I (mostly) agree. The genie is out of the bottle, as it were.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Two other points to consider:

1. The majority of suicides resulting from guns. Obviously, these are tragedies, but even if there were no guns in the USA, or on planet Earth, anybody who is prepared to shoot themselves would probably jump off a bridge or a cliff or use a knife or whatever. The absence of guns wouldn't change this sad statistic.

2. The USA has passed the point of no return on gun ownership IMO. I read somewhere that the USA's population is 330 million, and the estimated number of guns is also around the 330 million mark. Roughly, one gun for every American.

Even in the unlikely event the 2nd was repealed,no new guns were made, and even if there was an amnesty, and let's say 50% of guns were handed in and destroyed, that would still leave 150 million guns floating around

There would still be a gun problem.

And of course, you can never destroy the knowledge behind gun making...

Disagree most strongly on point 1. Having known some people who have considered (and attempted at taking their own life, as well as being very close to someone who has severe bipolar disorder) there is a world of difference in how they choose to end things. A gun makes it far easier than dealing with a knife or standing in front of traffic where you have the chance to reconsider. A gun is far too quick and easy an option when most of those people could well have been turned around.

Suicide by gun has a low risk of failure, which can be the deciding factor for many.

Yeah, the 'gun availability makes no difference to suicides' argument is built on an absolute mountain of ignorance.

One of the statistics is that women attempt more suicides, but men complete more suicides. Guns are one of the factors driving that statistic, as men usually utilize methods that are more likely to be lethal.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
Why do civilians need full automatic weapons?

Good question. Of course absent a few special licenses they don't so that's not an issue.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Two other points to consider:

1. The majority of suicides resulting from guns. Obviously, these are tragedies, but even if there were no guns in the USA, or on planet Earth, anybody who is prepared to shoot themselves would probably jump off a bridge or a cliff or use a knife or whatever. The absence of guns wouldn't change this sad statistic.

Epidemiological evidence shows that creating a barrier to the means of suicide makes impulse suicide less likely, thus reducing the overall rate.

For instance, when the UK made the sale of more than 32 paracetamol tablets in a single transaction illegal, suicide by paracetamol declined 94%. This is because the need to go out to a series of shops to buy enough pills to kill yourself imposes a pause between decision and action during which you are able to change your mind, find help, or whatever.

Similarly, a law that household pistols must be kept unloaded and locked in a safe, probably would reduce suicide in the USA. Obviously there is no way to test that, but the inference seems sound.

 BaronIveagh wrote:


Because since he shot himself, we'll never really know. This seems to have come totally out of the blue for the people who knew him.

I don't buy that at all, the brother knew something was up. Because he deflected and claimed his brother only owned a pistol or two and maybe a rifle.

sirlynchmob wrote:


I don't buy that at all, the brother knew something was up. Because he deflected and claimed his brother only owned a pistol or two and maybe a rifle.

Really? Not how I took that interview at all - and that's the first time I've seen someone interpret it that way.

nfe wrote:
Yeah, the 'gun availability makes no difference to suicides' argument is built on an absolute mountain of ignorance.

No it's really not. Attempts with low rate of success are chosen just for that reason. It's a subconscious defenses mechanism - those people would never have chose a gun in the first place.

 Xenomancers wrote:

nfe wrote:
Yeah, the 'gun availability makes no difference to suicides' argument is built on an absolute mountain of ignorance.

No it's really not. Attempts with low rate of success are chosen just for that reason. It's a subconscious defenses mechanism - those people would never have chose a gun in the first place.

How much background do you have in the psychology of suicide, out of curioisty?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

One interesting statistic is that California's knife and edged weapon killings tower over the rest of the country, so I might suggest that it might make killing harder to pull off, but if they want you dead badly enough to kill you, you're going to have a problem one way or another.

Right if they're going to kill you, having a gun is not going to stop that. You having a gun just means they just kill you and get a free gun.

 Xenomancers wrote:

nfe wrote:
Yeah, the 'gun availability makes no difference to suicides' argument is built on an absolute mountain of ignorance.

No it's really not. Attempts with low rate of success are chosen just for that reason. It's a subconscious defenses mechanism - those people would never have chose a gun in the first place.

The Harvard School of Public Health disagrees with you. Further, you didn't provide any sort of evidence whatsoever for your statement.

Of note:

Harvard School of Public Health wrote:Reducing access to lethal means does not always reduce the overall suicide rate. For example, restricting a low-lethality method or a method infrequently used may not make a detectable difference in the suicide rate. Restricting a very low-lethality method-if it results in attempters substituting a higher-lethality method-could in fact increase the overall suicide rate. Means reduction doesn’t change the underlying suicidal impulse or necessarily reduce attempts: rather, it saves lives by reducing the lethality of attempts.