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.
I've been reading a few of Jim Wright (@Stonekettle)'s articles on mass shootings, gun ownership, responsibility and so on. They're well worth a read. Despite him being in favour of guns and me not so much, I really can't fault how he argues. He's a retired US Navy Chief Warrant Officer, certified rangemaster, armourer and gunsmith. I'm happy to call him an expert on guns.
I won't list all his articles, but this one particularly impressed me. It's largely on responsibility.
Sebs, that is an amazing graph. It clearly shows the correlation. Wow.
The only real statistic that matters is overall murder rates. When you do a graph correlating overall murder rates to state gun ownership things get weird. The two outliers are Washington DC and Louisiana. DC has no guns and high murders, Louisiana has lots of guns and high murder. The overall trend is a bell curve that has a sweet spot of mid levels of gun ownership and low murders. Luckily I live in one of these states.
I'm guessing you've never heard of bolt cutters or sledge hammers or hack saws?
Show a news article that can reliably source that the Santa Fe shooter used bolt cutters, a sledgehammer, or a hacksaw to gain access to what was used.
This is where the problem comes from. There's all these ridiculous scenarios where people can come up with rather than just the father did a shoddy job securing his firearms and is looking for anyone else to point the finger at. He already tried to blame the victims with the "bullying" and "embarrassment" nonsense.
Crispy78 wrote: I've been reading a few of Jim Wright (@Stonekettle)'s articles on mass shootings, gun ownership, responsibility and so on. They're well worth a read. Despite him being in favour of guns and me not so much, I really can't fault how he argues. He's a retired US Navy Chief Warrant Officer, certified rangemaster, armourer and gunsmith. I'm happy to call him an expert on guns.
I won't list all his articles, but this one particularly impressed me. It's largely on responsibility.
I'd generally say that if America wants some sensible ideas on the whole gun thing, they could do a lot worse than talk to this guy.
All of the responsible gun owners I know, myself included, agree with the statement that "There are no accidental discharges only negligent ones." Modern firearms are designed very well for the most part and they won't just fire by themselves. If a firearm you are handling goes off when you didn't intend to fire a round then you are guilty of not following safe handling procedures. Firearm safety is pretty simple:
Treat every gun like it's loaded,
Always make sure the muzzle is pointed in a safe direction,
Identify your target and what's beyond it before you fire,
Make sure the gun is unloaded before you strip/clean it,
Store firearms securely when they're not in use.
Everyone who owns a firearm should always follow those rules and should make sure that everyone else that they live with or shoot with follows those rules as well. If you follow those rules you should never have a negligent discharge. The safe usage of any dangerous tool can also be governed by a similar set of basic rules.
We have a society that guarantees a lot of individual freedom so we therefore, as a society, need to consistently reinforce the importance of individual responsibility.
I'm guessing you've never heard of bolt cutters or sledge hammers or hack saws?
Show a news article that can reliably source that the Santa Fe shooter used bolt cutters, a sledgehammer, or a hacksaw to gain access to what was used.
This is where the problem comes from. There's all these ridiculous scenarios where people can come up with rather than just the father did a shoddy job securing his firearms and is looking for anyone else to point the finger at. He already tried to blame the victims with the "bullying" and "embarrassment" nonsense.
The Santa Fe shooter didn't need to break in to access the firearms because his parents had deemed their 17 year old honors student to be trustworthy in regards to responsibly using the firearms they owned. In hindsight that was clearly a mistake but I haven't seen any evidence that the parents were aware of any warning signs that their son was planning a mass murder. It's a less egregious version of what happened with Sandy Hook but in that instance the Sandy Hook murderer's mother chose to use recreational shooting as a way to connect with her son that she knew was suffering from mental/behavioral problems. Again, the gun the properly secured but the teenage was trusted with the ability to access it, which in hindsight was wrong and the mother paid for that mistake with her life since she was her son's first victim.
The world would certainly be a better place with better parenting across the board and parents having better knowledge of what's going on with their kids' lives but that's a very difficult thing to fix with laws.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/24 16:43:33
What good would reporting a lost gun do to anyone. There are 500 million guns in this country. "We got a gun on the loose" "someone call the police!" see - it doesn't make sense.
Yeah...that's not why one reports a lost gun. It's to cover your ass in case it gets used in illegal activities.
I'd imagine that makes it significantly harder to try to fence too, but I'll admit I don't know a whole lot about the selling process for that kind of stuff.
If it's a private buyer - they literally don't care.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
But, back on point. Rights are more than social constructs because they have their origins with the divine. Get it?
This is where the point of trying to have a rational discussion stops. I don't think I've ever seen anyone use "Deus Vult!" as an actual argument on Dakka before though, so that's nice I guess.
You have not heard of inalienable rights?
Have you not paid attention to the discussion? I've been over this multiple times, the "inalienable rights" of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" aren't inalienable, because you can get put in jail. Similarly, the "right to bear arms" that "shall not be infringed" can be infringed, e.g. if you're a felon.
Your "inalienable rights" are social constructs, and the sooner you recognize that fact the sooner a more productive discussion can be had on what those rights entail.
It is not the right that is the social construct. The social constructs are the tools we use to interact with each other within those rights. The idea of inalienable rights was that the could not be surrendered, sold or transferred. That is why to can't waive certain rights. It is a founding principle of this nation. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I'm really struggling to explain this in a way that isn't rude or condescending, but I'll try:
Merriam-Webster wrote:Definition of inalienable
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred
Merriam-Webster wrote:Definition of alienated
: feeling withdrawn or separated from others or from society as a whole : affected by alienation
By definition a right that can be withdrawn or separated from someone cannot be inalienable. The right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" can be withdrawn from a US citizen, as evidenced by the fact that you can be incarcerated or put to death for having committed a crime. The alternative is that the State simply ignores those rights which really isn't a precedence you want to be setting.
Similarly, the "right to bear arms", which "shall not be infringed", isn't absolute either; felons aren't allowed to own weapons. By definition, the right to bear arms thus cannot be inalienable, because there are situations where it can be withdrawn from you. If something can be withdrawn, it is by definition not inalienable. It's what the word means. Ergo, the idea that the right to bear arms is absolute and cannot be limited is bollocks. It's already limited.
American society decides when to withdraw those rights from people, and what those rights entail (see the changing interpretation of the Second Amendment from being collective to being individual). Those rights exist and are honoured because the people of the US collectively decide they should be. That is by definition a social construct. QED.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/24 17:03:31
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Sebs, that is an amazing graph. It clearly shows the correlation. Wow.
The only real statistic that matters is overall murder rates. When you do a graph correlating overall murder rates to state gun ownership things get weird. The two outliers are Washington DC and Louisiana. DC has no guns and high murders, Louisiana has lots of guns and high murder. The overall trend is a bell curve that has a sweet spot of mid levels of gun ownership and low murders. Luckily I live in one of these states.
I would love to see the Histogram you are siting. Care to share. I am a bit of a graph nerd.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
But, back on point. Rights are more than social constructs because they have their origins with the divine. Get it?
This is where the point of trying to have a rational discussion stops. I don't think I've ever seen anyone use "Deus Vult!" as an actual argument on Dakka before though, so that's nice I guess.
You have not heard of inalienable rights?
Have you not paid attention to the discussion? I've been over this multiple times, the "inalienable rights" of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" aren't inalienable, because you can get put in jail. Similarly, the "right to bear arms" that "shall not be infringed" can be infringed, e.g. if you're a felon.
Your "inalienable rights" are social constructs, and the sooner you recognize that fact the sooner a more productive discussion can be had on what those rights entail.
It is not the right that is the social construct. The social constructs are the tools we use to interact with each other within those rights. The idea of inalienable rights was that the could not be surrendered, sold or transferred. That is why to can't waive certain rights. It is a founding principle of this nation. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I'm really struggling to explain this in a way that isn't rude or condescending, but I'll try:
Merriam-Webster wrote:Definition of inalienable
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred
Merriam-Webster wrote:Definition of alienated
: feeling withdrawn or separated from others or from society as a whole : affected by alienation
By definition a right that can be withdrawn or separated from someone cannot be inalienable. The right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" can be withdrawn from a US citizen, as evidenced by the fact that you can be incarcerated or put to death for having committed a crime. The alternative is that the State simply ignores those rights which really isn't a precedence you want to be setting.
Similarly, the "right to bear arms", which "shall not be infringed", isn't absolute either; felons aren't allowed to own weapons. By definition, the right to bear arms thus cannot be inalienable, because there are situations where it can be withdrawn from you. If something can be withdrawn, it is by definition not inalienable. It's what the word means. Ergo, the idea that the right to bear arms is absolute and cannot be limited is bollocks. It's already limited.
American society decides when to withdraw those rights from people, and what those rights entail (see the changing interpretation of the Second Amendment from being collective to being individual). Those rights exist and are honoured because the people of the US collectively decide they should be. That is by definition a social construct. QED.
The declaration of independence is not a legal document. It was a declaration of war against tyranny. It's essentially the charter of the free world now.
14th amendment covers this pretty well.
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
This issue is not that these rights can't be removed but that they shouldn't.
Sebs, that is an amazing graph. It clearly shows the correlation. Wow.
The only real statistic that matters is overall murder rates. When you do a graph correlating overall murder rates to state gun ownership things get weird. The two outliers are Washington DC and Louisiana. DC has no guns and high murders, Louisiana has lots of guns and high murder. The overall trend is a bell curve that has a sweet spot of mid levels of gun ownership and low murders. Luckily I live in one of these states.
I would love to see the Histogram you are siting. Care to share. I am a bit of a graph nerd.
Yeah I'd like to see the same graph - with suicide/justifiable homicide/and accidental death removed. Basically - gun ownership compared to violent crime.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/05/24 17:58:42
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
skyth wrote: Gun suicides should very much be included in the graph. The whole point is that the more guns out there, the more often they are used in a bad way.
Gun suicide is not relevant here. Suicidal rampages are but suicides are not related to guns. There are many ways one can commit suicide - people choose the gun because it is painless and quick. They can simply choose another device. Anyone serious about killing themselves (and basically anyone that pulls the trigger with a handgun to the head is serious) have probably gone to a website like this https://www.quora.com/What-are-ways-to-painlessly-commit-suicide?redirected_qid=14365332 and even discussed it with other people.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
skyth wrote: Gun suicides should very much be included in the graph. The whole point is that the more guns out there, the more often they are used in a bad way.
Gun suicide is not relevant here. Suicidal rampages are but suicides are not related to guns. There are many ways one can commit suicide - people choose the gun because it is painless and quick. They can simply choose another device. Anyone serious about killing themselves (and basically anyone that pulls the trigger with a handgun to the head is serious) have probably gone to a website like this https://www.quora.com/What-are-ways-to-painlessly-commit-suicide?redirected_qid=14365332 and even discussed it with other people.
Most suicides occur after months or years of intrusive thoughts. But the actual act itself is usually impulsive, and keeping a gun handy is an easy way to kill yourself on impulse.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
US is upper middle of the pack for world suicide rate. Barely above the world average. Looking at data it's almost exclusively a male problem. With Europe leading the world in total suicide rate. There is no indication that this is a gun problem - I wouldn't fund your study.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
skyth wrote: Gun suicides should very much be included in the graph. The whole point is that the more guns out there, the more often they are used in a bad way.
Obviously access to a gun will increase the odds of successfully committing suicide but I don't think you can tie gun ownership to suicide rates.
Prestor Jon wrote: Our suicide rate among males has been steadily climbing for decades.
https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicide.shtml#part_154969 We have an unhealthy society and it’s made worse by the level of notoriety and infamy that is granted to murder suicides. This is a problem throughout Western society, Australia was recently shocked by a murder suicide of an entire family. Here in the US we have more people, more guns, more drugs and contributing cultural differences that exacerbate the problem.
I'm having issues importing the chart from the NIMH site but here's the important stats:
Trends over Time
Suicide rate is based on the number of people who have died by suicide per 100,000 population. Because changes in population size are taken into account, rates allow for comparisons from one year to the next.
Figure 1 shows the age-adjusted suicide rates in the United States for each year from 1999 through 2016 for the total population, and for males and females presented separately.
During that 17-year period, the total suicide rate increased 28% from 10.5 to 13.4 per 100,000.
The suicide rate among males remained nearly four times higher (21.3 per 100,000 in 2016) than among females (6.0 per 100,000 in 2016).
Now contrast the 28% increase in the suicide rate over the last 17 years with the rate of gun ownership per household:
Over the long term the percentage of gun owning households has decreased and in the same 17 year period that suicides have increased gun ownership has been relatively flat between 39%-45% each year.
Also from the NIMH website:
Figure 3 shows the rates of suicide for race/ethnicity groups in 2016. The rates of suicide were highest for males (32.8 per 100,000) and females (10.2 per 100,000) in the American Indian/Alaska Native group, followed by males (26.5 per 100,000) and females (7.9 per 100,000) in the White/non-Hispanic group.
Table 2 includes information on the total number of suicides for the most common methods.
In 2016, firearms were the most common method used in suicide deaths in the United States, accounting for almost half of all suicide deaths (22,963).
Figure 5 shows the percentages of suicide deaths by method among males and females in 2016. Among males, the most common method of suicide was firearm (56.6%). Among females, the most common methods of suicide were poisoning (33.0%) and firearm (32.1%).
Native Americans are the ethnic group with the highest suicide rate by a significant margin and the states with the highest suicide rates are the states where the reservations are located so I'm not sure how that would mitigate the impact of any new Federal gun laws aimed at reducing suicide by gun because reservations are sovereign entities that aren't subject to Federal laws like the States.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/24 19:41:48
14th amendment covers this pretty well.
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
This issue is not that these rights can't be removed but that they shouldn't.
And I've never commented on whether they should or not. I said that the "shall not be infringed" part of the Second Amendment (which is a law last time I looked) is bollocks because it's demonstrably not true.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
14th amendment covers this pretty well.
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
This issue is not that these rights can't be removed but that they shouldn't.
And I've never commented on whether they should or not. I said that the "shall not be infringed" part of the Second Amendment (which is a law last time I looked) is bollocks because it's demonstrably not true.
The fact that the government might get away with violations the “shall not be infringed” part doesn’t make it untrue, it just means the government can get away with being naughty.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
14th amendment covers this pretty well.
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
This issue is not that these rights can't be removed but that they shouldn't.
And I've never commented on whether they should or not. I said that the "shall not be infringed" part of the Second Amendment (which is a law last time I looked) is bollocks because it's demonstrably not true.
I think that the amendment is speaking of people in a plural sense or a philosophical sense. You are absolutely right that your rights can be taken away and that the constitution can be changed. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know how the US government works or was deigned to work.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/24 19:16:26
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
You absolutely should put gun suicides in there. I would posit that a great number of gun suicides wouldn't have happened without easy access to a firearm.
skyth wrote: Gun suicides should very much be included in the graph. The whole point is that the more guns out there, the more often they are used in a bad way.
Gun suicide is not relevant here. Suicidal rampages are but suicides are not related to guns. There are many ways one can commit suicide - people choose the gun because it is painless and quick. They can simply choose another device. Anyone serious about killing themselves (and basically anyone that pulls the trigger with a handgun to the head is serious) have probably gone to a website like this https://www.quora.com/What-are-ways-to-painlessly-commit-suicide?redirected_qid=14365332 and even discussed it with other people.
Most suicides occur after months or years of intrusive thoughts. But the actual act itself is usually impulsive, and keeping a gun handy is an easy way to kill yourself on impulse.
There is definitely a correlation between a 3 day waiting period and overall reduction suicide rate or extension of a waiting period. That means it is a good safety measure. It also makes sense - guns are exceptionally lethal in suicide attempts - chance of completing suicide is over 97% with a gun. It shows in the numbers for sure. Then again - the numbers aren't perfect. They can't tell you a lot of things - they can't tell you how many of those completed suicide attempts by guns wouldn't have just tried another highly effective method without a gun available. Which is what I am saying.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
skyth wrote: Gun suicides should very much be included in the graph. The whole point is that the more guns out there, the more often they are used in a bad way.
Gun suicide is not relevant here. Suicidal rampages are but suicides are not related to guns. There are many ways one can commit suicide - people choose the gun because it is painless and quick. They can simply choose another device. Anyone serious about killing themselves (and basically anyone that pulls the trigger with a handgun to the head is serious) have probably gone to a website like this https://www.quora.com/What-are-ways-to-painlessly-commit-suicide?redirected_qid=14365332 and even discussed it with other people.
Most suicides occur after months or years of intrusive thoughts. But the actual act itself is usually impulsive, and keeping a gun handy is an easy way to kill yourself on impulse.
There is definitely a correlation between a 3 day waiting period and overall reduction suicide rate or extension of a waiting period. That means it is a good safety measure. It also makes sense - guns are exceptionally lethal in suicide attempts - chance of completing suicide is over 97% with a gun. It shows in the numbers for sure. Then again - the numbers aren't perfect. They can't tell you a lot of things - they can't tell you how many of those completed suicide attempts by guns wouldn't have just tried another highly effective method without a gun available. Which is what I am saying.
Well, fair enough. We can't ask the dead their opinion. We do have interviews with people who survive suicide attempts, and they usually express regret.
The other highly effective impulsive method of suicide is the high jump. High fences on bridges are difficult to scale but not impossible, but just the addition of that extra layer of difficulty reduces the number of jumpers.
Some people are very driven and will end their life at any cost. Most suicidal people are not, and if an impulsive method is not available, they will not act and either the situation will pass or they will get help.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
skyth wrote: Gun suicides should very much be included in the graph. The whole point is that the more guns out there, the more often they are used in a bad way.
Gun suicide is not relevant here. Suicidal rampages are but suicides are not related to guns. There are many ways one can commit suicide - people choose the gun because it is painless and quick. They can simply choose another device. Anyone serious about killing themselves (and basically anyone that pulls the trigger with a handgun to the head is serious) have probably gone to a website like this https://www.quora.com/What-are-ways-to-painlessly-commit-suicide?redirected_qid=14365332 and even discussed it with other people.
Most suicides occur after months or years of intrusive thoughts. But the actual act itself is usually impulsive, and keeping a gun handy is an easy way to kill yourself on impulse.
There is definitely a correlation between a 3 day waiting period and overall reduction suicide rate or extension of a waiting period. That means it is a good safety measure. It also makes sense - guns are exceptionally lethal in suicide attempts - chance of completing suicide is over 97% with a gun. It shows in the numbers for sure. Then again - the numbers aren't perfect. They can't tell you a lot of things - they can't tell you how many of those completed suicide attempts by guns wouldn't have just tried another highly effective method without a gun available. Which is what I am saying.
Well, fair enough. We can't ask the dead their opinion. We do have interviews with people who survive suicide attempts, and they usually express regret.
The other highly effective impulsive method of suicide is the high jump. High fences on bridges are difficult to scale but not impossible, but just the addition of that extra layer of difficulty reduces the number of jumpers.
Some people are very driven and will end their life at any cost. Most suicidal people are not, and if an impulsive method is not available, they will not act and either the situation will pass or they will get help.
I would question some of the findings of that study based upon the facts about suicide and gun ownership I posted earlier. The states with the highest suicide rates also have reservations and Native Americans have the highest suicide rate of any ethnicity by a significant margin. Also, in the last 17 years suicides are up 28% nationally but gun ownership is flat at across that time period at about 42% of households.
skyth wrote: Gun suicides should very much be included in the graph. The whole point is that the more guns out there, the more often they are used in a bad way.
Gun suicide is not relevant here. Suicidal rampages are but suicides are not related to guns. There are many ways one can commit suicide - people choose the gun because it is painless and quick. They can simply choose another device. Anyone serious about killing themselves (and basically anyone that pulls the trigger with a handgun to the head is serious) have probably gone to a website like this https://www.quora.com/What-are-ways-to-painlessly-commit-suicide?redirected_qid=14365332 and even discussed it with other people.
Most suicides occur after months or years of intrusive thoughts. But the actual act itself is usually impulsive, and keeping a gun handy is an easy way to kill yourself on impulse.
There is definitely a correlation between a 3 day waiting period and overall reduction suicide rate or extension of a waiting period. That means it is a good safety measure. It also makes sense - guns are exceptionally lethal in suicide attempts - chance of completing suicide is over 97% with a gun. It shows in the numbers for sure. Then again - the numbers aren't perfect. They can't tell you a lot of things - they can't tell you how many of those completed suicide attempts by guns wouldn't have just tried another highly effective method without a gun available. Which is what I am saying.
Well, fair enough. We can't ask the dead their opinion. We do have interviews with people who survive suicide attempts, and they usually express regret.
The other highly effective impulsive method of suicide is the high jump. High fences on bridges are difficult to scale but not impossible, but just the addition of that extra layer of difficulty reduces the number of jumpers.
Some people are very driven and will end their life at any cost. Most suicidal people are not, and if an impulsive method is not available, they will not act and either the situation will pass or they will get help.
The rate of suicide lethality goes up when a gun is used it can't be argued against. There are other factors at play though. Suicide rate is increasing at a high rate but as Prestor has pointed out gun ownership in households is not increasing at anywhere near that rate. This does not match the conclusions of the study.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Xenomancers wrote: [The rate of suicide lethality goes up when a gun is used it can't be argued against. There are other factors at play though. Suicide rate is increasing at a high rate but as Prestor has pointed out gun ownership in households is not increasing at anywhere near that rate. This does not match the conclusions of the study.
While I agree that adding a gun ups the odds of lethality, it's not as bad as it seems. There are two kinds of suicide attempts: Serious attempts, and pleas for help/attention. The pleas for help are not exactly what you would call "serious" attempts, yet they are still counted towards suicide statistics. Not many people use guns for pleas of help/attention.
Prestor Jon wrote: [
I would question some of the findings of that study based upon the facts about suicide and gun ownership I posted earlier. The states with the highest suicide rates also have reservations and Native Americans have the highest suicide rate of any ethnicity by a significant margin. Also, in the last 17 years suicides are up 28% nationally but gun ownership is flat at across that time period at about 42% of households.
There are other factors as well. The gaps in the urban/rural makeup for instance. Suicides are more common among the poor, elderly, socially isolated, and those farther from mental health providers. Rural life, by its nature, has far more of this than urban life. Guns just also exist more in rural areas.
skyth wrote: Gun suicides should very much be included in the graph. The whole point is that the more guns out there, the more often they are used in a bad way.
Gun suicide is not relevant here. Suicidal rampages are but suicides are not related to guns. There are many ways one can commit suicide - people choose the gun because it is painless and quick. They can simply choose another device. Anyone serious about killing themselves (and basically anyone that pulls the trigger with a handgun to the head is serious) have probably gone to a website like this https://www.quora.com/What-are-ways-to-painlessly-commit-suicide?redirected_qid=14365332 and even discussed it with other people.
Most suicides occur after months or years of intrusive thoughts. But the actual act itself is usually impulsive, and keeping a gun handy is an easy way to kill yourself on impulse.
There is definitely a correlation between a 3 day waiting period and overall reduction suicide rate or extension of a waiting period. That means it is a good safety measure. It also makes sense - guns are exceptionally lethal in suicide attempts - chance of completing suicide is over 97% with a gun. It shows in the numbers for sure. Then again - the numbers aren't perfect. They can't tell you a lot of things - they can't tell you how many of those completed suicide attempts by guns wouldn't have just tried another highly effective method without a gun available. Which is what I am saying.
Well, fair enough. We can't ask the dead their opinion. We do have interviews with people who survive suicide attempts, and they usually express regret.
The other highly effective impulsive method of suicide is the high jump. High fences on bridges are difficult to scale but not impossible, but just the addition of that extra layer of difficulty reduces the number of jumpers.
Some people are very driven and will end their life at any cost. Most suicidal people are not, and if an impulsive method is not available, they will not act and either the situation will pass or they will get help.
I would question some of the findings of that study based upon the facts about suicide and gun ownership I posted earlier. The states with the highest suicide rates also have reservations and Native Americans have the highest suicide rate of any ethnicity by a significant margin. Also, in the last 17 years suicides are up 28% nationally but gun ownership is flat at across that time period at about 42% of households.
Well yeah, the ol' correlation does not mean causation. But the study did show that suicide rates are higher in areas with higher rates of gun ownership, and it's an established fact that access to impulsive ways to end your life will increase the chance of you trying to top yourself, if you were so inclined.
I really started this tangent to try and dispel the "they'll just find another way" myth. All studies show otherwise.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Insurgency Walker wrote: It is not the right that is the social construct. The social constructs are the tools we use to interact with each other within those rights. The idea of inalienable rights was that the could not be surrendered, sold or transferred. That is why to can't waive certain rights. It is a founding principle of this nation. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Just because you say (or quote someone) doesn't make it true. I've always found that quote quite silly, it's pretty self evident that by damned near any measure all men are NOT created equal, and while it's nice to say those rights are inalienable is it really significant or even true? My understanding of the word inalienable (remembering it's not a common word outside of America so maybe my understanding is wrong) is that it simply means something you can't give away, it can't be transferred by the possessor. Except isn't the crux of the issue not people giving away those rights but rather them being taken away, which history shows can and does happen. And it's not like they can't be given away by the possessor anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I also don't think suicide belongs in the statistics when talking about gun violence. Although suicide is an act of self violence including it seems to be used to generate fear and inflate numbers. I know people that when the hear that police are most likely to die by their own gun they walk away thinking police are being stripped of there firearms and shot with them. Not that it is a suicide issue.
I think suicide should be in a separate column, but it definitely needs to be brought up. Being able to kill yourself more easily makes you more likely to succeed. Depression is a sickness that can go various levels be treated, so less people succeeding at killing themselves is for the better.
Personally I don't have a problem with guns in America, I think a large number of guns makes deadly violence more prevalent but putting a realistic number on it is difficult because of all the other factors that feed into that statistic. I also think a large number of guns probably makes non-deadly crimes less prevalent, but again damned near impossible to put a number on that.
At the end of the day random shootings are still statistically feth all and if muricans deem the level of random shootings an acceptable price for having guns, I'm fine with that. Not every country has to be Sweden, if you don't like the American philosophy on life then don't move there.
I drive a 60's muscle car that is far more likely to kill someone than if I drove a modern buzz box, but I still drive it because society currently at least has deemed the risk small enough to leave the choice in my hands and I'm grateful for that. I don't see it as being a hell of a lot different to allowing people to have guns as long as the random shootings remain statistically small.
Just because you say something doesn't make it true. Correct. When you come right down to it the US doesn't have a large group of documents and while the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document it is considered as a guide to understanding the political philosophy of the founders. So what did they mean by saying things like all men are created equally, and this inalienable rights thing? What was natures god?
They decided they wanted to create a society and culture that put those ideas above all others. When our courts examine law many of them still reflect upon those values because we can and should give them meaning. The founders believed that when a government stopped recognizing those rights leading to injustice it was the people's right to create a new government. Some of them believed it was their duty.
What about prison and execution? Well removing those rights is such a serious action that our legal system is filled with rights for the accused starting with the idea that you are innocent until proven guilty. Most of these ideas were already kicking around Europe and the idea of a right to self defense was one of those.
This means the founders were some kind of awsome freedom savants?
Feth no. But they were some crazy revolutionarys. Some of them, a bunch really, hated the idea of sharing the rights they had claimed in the name of the collective.
What does this have to do with a school shooting?
It seems like today it's always about my rights. My rights to self defense, my right to a safe school, my right not to be offended by your religion, my right not to be offended by your music, my right not be be offended by your sex, my right to health care. When it used to be about our rights. Our rights to freedom of expression, our rights to equality, our rights to equal protection under the law. Our right to life, our right to choose?
Pretty obvious that the school shooters didn't believe in the our people's rights. Looks like school shooters believe rights are not unalienable. Who taught him to take others rights? The teachers? His parents? His classmates? His life experience?
We aren't building a better society, we are building sleeper cells.
skyth wrote: Gun suicides should very much be included in the graph. The whole point is that the more guns out there, the more often they are used in a bad way.
Gun suicide is not relevant here. Suicidal rampages are but suicides are not related to guns. There are many ways one can commit suicide - people choose the gun because it is painless and quick. They can simply choose another device. Anyone serious about killing themselves (and basically anyone that pulls the trigger with a handgun to the head is serious) have probably gone to a website like this https://www.quora.com/What-are-ways-to-painlessly-commit-suicide?redirected_qid=14365332 and even discussed it with other people.
Most suicides occur after months or years of intrusive thoughts. But the actual act itself is usually impulsive, and keeping a gun handy is an easy way to kill yourself on impulse.
There is definitely a correlation between a 3 day waiting period and overall reduction suicide rate or extension of a waiting period. That means it is a good safety measure. It also makes sense - guns are exceptionally lethal in suicide attempts - chance of completing suicide is over 97% with a gun. It shows in the numbers for sure. Then again - the numbers aren't perfect. They can't tell you a lot of things - they can't tell you how many of those completed suicide attempts by guns wouldn't have just tried another highly effective method without a gun available. Which is what I am saying.
Well, fair enough. We can't ask the dead their opinion. We do have interviews with people who survive suicide attempts, and they usually express regret.
The other highly effective impulsive method of suicide is the high jump. High fences on bridges are difficult to scale but not impossible, but just the addition of that extra layer of difficulty reduces the number of jumpers.
Some people are very driven and will end their life at any cost. Most suicidal people are not, and if an impulsive method is not available, they will not act and either the situation will pass or they will get help.
I would question some of the findings of that study based upon the facts about suicide and gun ownership I posted earlier. The states with the highest suicide rates also have reservations and Native Americans have the highest suicide rate of any ethnicity by a significant margin. Also, in the last 17 years suicides are up 28% nationally but gun ownership is flat at across that time period at about 42% of households.
Well yeah, the ol' correlation does not mean causation. But the study did show that suicide rates are higher in areas with higher rates of gun ownership, and it's an established fact that access to impulsive ways to end your life will increase the chance of you trying to top yourself, if you were so inclined.
I really started this tangent to try and dispel the "they'll just find another way" myth. All studies show otherwise.
I agree with you that correlation isn’t causation and that the availability of a firearm makes it easier to act on impulse and successful commit suicides. There’s also a lot of complexity with suicides. The 18-25 age group has the highest rate of suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts but they have the second lowest rate per age group of successful suicides. The 65+ age group has the highest rate of successful suicides and a very low rate of suicide attempts. At 65+ I think suicide becomes more of an euthanasia issue than a mental health issue.
There’s also more factors that affect a states suicide rate than just gun ownership. Oklahoma and Louisiana have a similar rate of gun ownership both are higher than a state like NJ but Oklahoma has a much higher suicide rate than Louisiana or NJ. Oklahoma also has much more Reservation land than Louisiana or NJ and Native Americans have a significantly higher suicide rate than other ethnic groups. As a group Native Americans have triple the suicide rate as Asians even though Asians account for twice the percentage of suicide attempts as Native Americans. I think that difference is attributable to a lot more factors than just gun ownership.
I've only skimmed the thread, but one thing I picked up on is a 'gun owners need to secure their guns properly' theme.
My situation: I live on 38 acres, have horses, goats, chickens, ducks, llama, alpacas, a couple pet pigs (don't get me started on that one), dogs, and a teenaged daughter.
I've shot two rattlers and one copperhead in the last 4 weeks. One of the rattlers was less than 3 feet from my back deck, the copperhead was by the chicken coop.
Last summer we had a rattler (5 footer) in one of the horse pastures. I had to run 800 meters to the house, grab a rifle, run back out to where my wife was keeping the horses away form the snake, and then shoot the snake.
I've also had to cap a coyote trying to get into a goat pen and a fox digging into the chicken coop.
Now, I keep a 12 gauge and a .22 in the barn, one .22 rifle in a gun case on a Polaris utility vehicle, and one between the gun safe and the wall. All loaded but safeties on. Daughter, wife, and I all know how to use them. The process of finding keys to the safe, going to the room with the safe, unlocking and getting out a gun, going to another room to get ammo/magazines, then going to take care of the varmint is frankly asinine.
Making laws to make my life hardier is something I am going to fight. Making laws to allow some LEO to check on my compliance is also something I would be very much against.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/25 01:16:55
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10259683/mother_jones_gun_deaths_by_state.png)
