Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Grizzly on August 23, 2013, 02:36:23 pm
-
Since hte debate was actually about this on this ofrums a few weeks back, and deathfun had his gun license revoked, I thought this article is very relevant (http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2013/01/20/the-gun-toll-ignoring-suicide/xeWBHDHEvvagfkRlU3CfZJ/story.html).
-
Well, it makes sense that there would be so many suicides by firearm. A bullet to the head is certainly faster and probably less painful than medication overdose or hanging.
-
Good article. The problem is, suicide prevention in general is hard. Somebody could be a perfectly normal, responsible person with a very good reason to keep a gun around. There's no reason he/she shouldn't have one. Then, of all sudden, a hard time comes (bad luck in love, job loss) and nobody other than the closest friends/relatives can do much about it or even notice, and sometimes not even them. A gun makes suicides easier and less survivable, but it's just a part of a much bigger, much more important problem. No amount of gun safety training is gonna help here, unless you get safety regs drilled in so hard that the idea of pointing a gun in an unsafe direction becomes inconceivable. Also, the state can't really do much in this case, at least not without also depriving legitimate gun owners of their weapons, simply because there's no difference between a legitimate owner and a suicidal person until a short time before the attempt. Mandatory gun cabinets and awareness campaigns are a good idea, but pretty much the extent of what the Government can do. Still, this is treating the symptoms, not the cause. Same as building tall fences around bridges, that does help make suicide more of a chore (in turn reducing the rates by giving people more time to think, among other things), but isn't a solution to the (much bigger and more complex) problem.
Oh, and banning large mags, pistol grips and other tacticool stuff isn't gonna help in that case. A gun's a gun in that case, it's only slightly more difficult to shoot oneself with a rifle than a handgun, unless we're talking antiquated long rifles (you know, like the old Lee-Enfield with a 767mm long barrel). So unless we're gonna limit the people to 100 years old long long rifle designs, limiting specific kinds of weapons isn't gonna help much.
-
Good article. The problem is, suicide prevention in general is hard. Somebody could be a perfectly normal, responsible person with a very good reason to keep a gun around. There's no reason he/she shouldn't have one. Then, of all sudden, a hard time comes (bad luck in love, job loss) and nobody other than the closest friends/relatives can do much about it or even notice, and sometimes not even them. A gun makes suicides easier and less survivable, but it's just a part of a much bigger, much more important problem. No amount of gun safety training is gonna help here, unless you get safety regs drilled in so hard that the idea of pointing a gun in an unsafe direction becomes inconceivable. Also, the state can't really do much in this case, at least not without also depriving legitimate gun owners of their weapons, simply because there's no difference between a legitimate owner and a suicidal person until a short time before the attempt. Mandatory gun cabinets and awareness campaigns are a good idea, but pretty much the extent of what the Government can do. Still, this is treating the symptoms, not the cause. Same as building tall fences around bridges, that does help make suicide more of a chore (in turn reducing the rates by giving people more time to think, among other things), but isn't a solution to the (much bigger and more complex) problem.
Oh, and banning large mags, pistol grips and other tacticool stuff isn't gonna help in that case. A gun's a gun in that case, it's only slightly more difficult to shoot oneself with a rifle than a handgun, unless we're talking antiquated long rifles (you know, like the old Lee-Enfield with a 767mm long barrel). So unless we're gonna limit the people to 100 years old long long rifle designs, limiting specific kinds of weapons isn't gonna help much.
Brown Besses for all.
(http://www.cmhg.gc.ca/cmh/book_images/high/v2_c4_s20_ss02_01.jpg)
Wasted twenty seconds loading and priming and now I realized my arms are too bloody short.
-
Well there's two ways to look at this.
1) As the article points out, suicide is very often a spur of the moment decision which can very easily be reversed, that's why so many people can be talked down off a ledge. If you make it a little harder to get someone to commit suicide then you save lives simply because you give these people time to reconsider, both before and during the suicide attempt. I've always said that one of the most important pieces of anti-suicide advice you can give a person is "Wait 3 days. See if you change your mind. If life is really that bad, it will still be bad in 3 days time.
2) The other way to look at it is that it's people who against the advice of others decided to buy a gun and bring it into their home. People have been saying for years that you're more likely to die by your own gun than to ever need it to defend yourself. But these people were so certain that they'd never face the kind of mental health problems or life situations that would lead to them committing suicide that it starts to become arrogant. So **** 'em. Give them a Darwin Award and enjoy the improved gene pool. :p
I tend to lean towards 1) most of the time, but when the same people you're trying to help complain about it and try to make it a civil rights/second amendment issue, I do tend to remember 2)
-
Good article. The problem is, suicide prevention in general is hard. Somebody could be a perfectly normal, responsible person with a very good reason to keep a gun around. There's no reason he/she shouldn't have one. Then, of all sudden, a hard time comes (bad luck in love, job loss) and nobody other than the closest friends/relatives can do much about it or even notice, and sometimes not even them. A gun makes suicides easier and less survivable, but it's just a part of a much bigger, much more important problem. No amount of gun safety training is gonna help here, unless you get safety regs drilled in so hard that the idea of pointing a gun in an unsafe direction becomes inconceivable. Also, the state can't really do much in this case, at least not without also depriving legitimate gun owners of their weapons, simply because there's no difference between a legitimate owner and a suicidal person until a short time before the attempt. Mandatory gun cabinets and awareness campaigns are a good idea, but pretty much the extent of what the Government can do. Still, this is treating the symptoms, not the cause. Same as building tall fences around bridges, that does help make suicide more of a chore (in turn reducing the rates by giving people more time to think, among other things), but isn't a solution to the (much bigger and more complex) problem.
Oh, and banning large mags, pistol grips and other tacticool stuff isn't gonna help in that case. A gun's a gun in that case, it's only slightly more difficult to shoot oneself with a rifle than a handgun, unless we're talking antiquated long rifles (you know, like the old Lee-Enfield with a 767mm long barrel). So unless we're gonna limit the people to 100 years old long long rifle designs, limiting specific kinds of weapons isn't gonna help much.
/thread
This is really all there is to say on the subject. Banning scary looking AR-15 rifles isn't going to lower suicide rates. Suicide isn't, never has been and never will be solved with gun laws. What you're seeing now is the bankrupt authoritarians grasping for straws, they know they lost and are now acting like sore losers. Same thing as the butthurt anti-gay Republicans; same thing, different party.
If you're actually concerned with suicide, then stop beating that dead horse and actually do something about it. How about the author of this article actually go out and volunteer for a suicide help hotline? Or work towards providing better psychological assistance to those who need it; either through government or through non-profit means?
-
http://www.cracked.com/article_20396_5-mind-blowing-facts-nobody-told-you-about-guns.html
Yes, I'm linking a Cracked article. Guess what- number three on their list is perfectly salient to this argument. I'll go ahead and summarize here as much as possible:
Bizarrely, the entire gun debate tends to completely ignore two-thirds of the deaths: Gun suicides are almost twice as common as homicides in America (19,392 to 11,078 in 2010).
...The reasonable person will reply, "But that's not saying anything about guns, Cracked -- if depressed people want to kill themselves, they'll just find another way!" Actually ... no, they won't. Whether guns are legal or not, whether you believe in gun control or not, here's the most important reason you'll ever hear for not keeping one in your home. It has to do with ovens.
In the first half of the 20th century, ovens in England used to burn coal gas, which happened to be completely lethal in concentrated doses and was thus the preferred way to commit suicide. By the late 1950s, sticking your head in the oven accounted for nearly half of all suicides committed in England. By the early 1970s, these ovens had been phased out, so nobody was surprised to see coal gas fall out of the top ten British suicide methods (one of Cracked.com's least popular recurring articles). So what did all of those suicidal people do instead? In a startling number of cases, they just went right on living. The suicide rate dropped by a third, and it never went back up.
...Suicides, it turns out, are often split-second decisions -- add even a few minutes' thought or just plain inconvenience to it, and a lot of the victims change their minds. Of course, that's not possible if your method involves instantly splattering your brains all over the wall with one pull of the trigger.
...So it's no surprise that one of the biggest risk factors for suicide is simply having a gun in the house. And nobody wants to talk about it, even though this is twice the problem of all other gun violence combined. Gun suicides kill the equivalent of two Sandy Hook shootings a day.
Another point to mention here: the majority of gun deaths are via handgun, whether they be suicide, homicide, accident, or something else (http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/the-shocking-truth-about-gun-violence-by-dogs/).
Serious link though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Violent_crime_related_to_guns. And I don't remember my source on the suicide statistic, but I am 100% certain that handguns are more commonly implicated in suicides over other firearms as well.
Clearly, the real culprit in the US w.r.t. gun deaths is handguns, yet handguns are the target of barely any more regulation than any other firearm class. I'd ask "why?" but I know I either won't get an answer or I'll dislike the answer I get (inb4 2nd Amendment fanatics).
I'm a solid proponent of gun ownership, but the data is self-explanatory. A theoretical removal of handguns from circulation would slash the rate of gun deaths in the US by a strong margin (not that such a thing would ever happen, nor would I support such a policy in practice).
-
This is really all there is to say on the subject. Banning scary looking AR-15 rifles isn't going to lower suicide rates. Suicide isn't, never has been and never will be solved with gun laws. What you're seeing now is the bankrupt authoritarians grasping for straws, they know they lost and are now acting like sore losers. Same thing as the butthurt anti-gay Republicans; same thing, different party.
This thread isn't about gun rights. And I will ban anyone who tries to make it about that.
-
Handguns
Handguns are small and portable, and consequently are easy to dispatch oneself with since you can point the barrel at yourself with one hand. As my snarky comment about the Brown Bess suggests, the logistics for shooting ones' self with a long rifle are inconvenient. In non rural areas handguns are arguably the most utilitarian firearm, if you are looking for a firearm to carry or for personal protection its going to be a pistol. Between their utility and popularity removing them from society would be a massively uphill battle.
>>To elaborate a little more, pistols probably have the widest user base of any firearm. Attempting to remove them would impact the majority of gun owners. Considering "Assault" Rifles represent a far smaller percentage of gun owners and are hotly contested, handgun regulation would face probably the stiffest resistance of any weapon.
-
Between their utility and popularity removing them from society would be a massively uphill battle.
I want there to be ZERO ambiguity on this point: I do not support a ban of any sort.
My post is intended only to point out information that is likely not commonly considered in an otherwise tired and trite discourse. I don't know what a realistic solution to this depressing state of affairs is. Data is data- what we do with the data is what matters.
-
I don't think this is anything the government can solve by bans.
This is just something people need to be aware of when they consider buying a gun. It's a risk of owning a weapon that even most responsible gun owners fail to consider.
-
Good article. The problem is, suicide prevention in general is hard. Somebody could be a perfectly normal, responsible person with a very good reason to keep a gun around. There's no reason he/she shouldn't have one. Then, of all sudden, a hard time comes (bad luck in love, job loss) and nobody other than the closest friends/relatives can do much about it or even notice, and sometimes not even them. A gun makes suicides easier and less survivable, but it's just a part of a much bigger, much more important problem. No amount of gun safety training is gonna help here, unless you get safety regs drilled in so hard that the idea of pointing a gun in an unsafe direction becomes inconceivable. Also, the state can't really do much in this case, at least not without also depriving legitimate gun owners of their weapons, simply because there's no difference between a legitimate owner and a suicidal person until a short time before the attempt. Mandatory gun cabinets and awareness campaigns are a good idea, but pretty much the extent of what the Government can do. Still, this is treating the symptoms, not the cause. Same as building tall fences around bridges, that does help make suicide more of a chore (in turn reducing the rates by giving people more time to think, among other things), but isn't a solution to the (much bigger and more complex) problem.
Oh, and banning large mags, pistol grips and other tacticool stuff isn't gonna help in that case. A gun's a gun in that case, it's only slightly more difficult to shoot oneself with a rifle than a handgun, unless we're talking antiquated long rifles (you know, like the old Lee-Enfield with a 767mm long barrel). So unless we're gonna limit the people to 100 years old long long rifle designs, limiting specific kinds of weapons isn't gonna help much.
/thread
This is really all there is to say on the subject. Banning scary looking AR-15 rifles isn't going to lower suicide rates. Suicide isn't, never has been and never will be solved with gun laws.
THe article itself talks about how mandatory gun locks/safes may go a large way in preventing suicides.
I am also rather interested on how much of the gun homocides in the US are due to unfortunate accidents rather then a clear intent to harm the persons. Anyone got any info on that?
-
I am also rather interested on how much of the gun homocides in the US are due to unfortunate accidents rather then a clear intent to harm the persons. Anyone got any info on that?
I posted them in the last lengthy gun thread. You can find the link there if you want to page through the mess.
-
Since hte debate was actually about this on this ofrums a few weeks back, and deathfun had his gun license revoked, I thought this article is very relevant (http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2013/01/20/the-gun-toll-ignoring-suicide/xeWBHDHEvvagfkRlU3CfZJ/story.html).
Gun, not gun license
And I'm getting it back this Thursday making the entire situation pointless leading to the relevant statement:
If I was going to kill myself, they did a terrible job preventing anything (since I had ammo and my license. I could just go back to the store and get another 150$ rifle)
As my snarky comment about the Brown Bess suggests, the logistics for shooting ones' self with a long rifle are inconvenient.
I'd just like to point out (again, as most everyone else has already done so) that the key is basically just that. Inconvenience.
But that all comes down to the gun owner in the end. I was told that in moments like these, the best course of action is to give your rifle to a friend to hold onto for a while as things sort out.
Problem being, is all of what can prevent a suicide in cases of firearms, comes down to what the person is willing to do in order to make it as hard as possible for themselves to carry through with it.
As Kara has already pointed out though, most people don't think about that when purchasing a firearm
Less serious note: Should've used your toe StaySlayer!
-
not only do they want to take away my guns but my right to suicide as well. burn the earth. nuke the entire thing from orbit. its only way be sure.
-
not only do they want to take away my guns but my right to suicide as well. burn the earth. nuke the entire thing from orbit. its only way be sure.
Is violating the right of someone to choose whether they wish to live or die not a fundamental abuse of our human rights?
With that being said, killing yourself isn't something that one should take lightly and there are almost certainly better ways to go about doing it.
-
Ignore Nuke, Nakura. He just wants the World to die.
-
I'd just like to point out (again, as most everyone else has already done so) that the key is basically just that. Inconvenience.
But that all comes down to the gun owner in the end. I was told that in moments like these, the best course of action is to give your rifle to a friend to hold onto for a while as things sort out.
one might argue that a better course of action would be to restrict the availability of devices with the sole purpose of killing efficiently
oh, and nakura? the distinction between suicide and euthanasia is not a particularly radical idea
-
PH, in Canada those devices are already properly restricted. In deathfun's case, the system worked properly. I refrained from dragging this out in WHIYL, but part of the licensing system in Canada gives the police-of-jurisdiction the authority to inspect households with licensed firearms owners for compliance with storage and use laws - without warrant (though often they may get one). They can also seize said weapons - without warrant - for a variety of reasons (authorized under several pieces of legislation) for predetermined time periods.
These provisions exist precisely for the purposes of mitigating the risk of an otherwise-responsible gun owner committing a crime with a legally-owned weapon while in a state of mental distress, among other things.
-
(is deathfun canadian or are you making a general point)
-
(is deathfun canadian or are you making a general point)
It be kinda weird if the RCMP confiscated it if he were not.
-
well i tend not to read whiyl very closely, if at all
-
Ignore Nuke, Nakura. He just wants the World to die.
its my right to self terminate! Lorric is one of those kids who have a lot of ideas about the world, but no ****ing clue about actual realities. illusions are your enemy! destroy them!
-
I support anyone's right to end their own life.
-
I support anyone's right to end their own life.
I don't. Having been suicidal and automutilistic myself, I think I speak for everyone when I say that I wish I had people who could have stopped me in those moments, instead of relying entirely on my own sense of self-preservation.
-
I support anyone's right to end their own life.
I don't. Having been suicidal and automutilistic myself, I think I speak for everyone when I say that I wish I had people who could have stopped me in those moments, instead of relying entirely on my own sense of self-preservation.
I don't mean like that. I mean those who are suffering and won't stop suffering and want to die. We can put an animal out of it's misery just like that, but a person has to fight through the courts and suffer, and so do those who care about them who's hands are tied, it's barbaric and backward.
-
i cannot be bothered to explain to you why that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. good job on another derail