|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 21 2013 23:16 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 14:19 LanTAs wrote:
There are enough idiots with weapons that can kill a person with just the push of a gas pedal, I do not see why we want people with the capability to kill a person with a pull of a finger. I find the arguments in support for gun advocacy weak and illogical, and honestly the people who support it try to derail arguments against it by making the arguments completely immoral and dangerous to society. Amendments were meant to be changed, or else why the fuck would we have this system in the US to change it? Is it just a symbolism of America's will to change, or rather its ignorance and resistance towards progression to a better society? Guns are inherently dangerous no matter how many precautions you take to reduce gun violence, so why even bother allowing anybody have them? Just remember that the majority of these massacres have been caused by people who have attained these weapons of mass destruction by legal ways, which the background checks and gun safes failed to stop. Remember that even though it is the land of the free, we as human beings of our community must become morally responsible and protect each other from harm, not just turn a blind eye and hope for the best. Sure, but if you can't trust civilians enough to let them have guns, you can't trust the police or the military with them either. They're just as human, and just as prone to random violence. A uniform doesn't make someone a saint.
Cops and military have registered weapons, regular training, mandatory training, are required to fill out reports for pulling out their weapons let alone psychiatric evaluations for firing their weapons. They are issued weapons and can have those weapons confiscated for any reason, they have a chain of command keeping tabs on their weapon use, their weapon training program lasts 90 days initially and more are required regularly after that.
If you want citizens to be treated like cops and military--sure 
We just need a national registration, 6-16 week gun training courses, yearly retraining, and the ability to confiscate your weapons at any time for any reason.
|
On May 21 2013 23:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 23:16 Millitron wrote:On May 21 2013 14:19 LanTAs wrote:
There are enough idiots with weapons that can kill a person with just the push of a gas pedal, I do not see why we want people with the capability to kill a person with a pull of a finger. I find the arguments in support for gun advocacy weak and illogical, and honestly the people who support it try to derail arguments against it by making the arguments completely immoral and dangerous to society. Amendments were meant to be changed, or else why the fuck would we have this system in the US to change it? Is it just a symbolism of America's will to change, or rather its ignorance and resistance towards progression to a better society? Guns are inherently dangerous no matter how many precautions you take to reduce gun violence, so why even bother allowing anybody have them? Just remember that the majority of these massacres have been caused by people who have attained these weapons of mass destruction by legal ways, which the background checks and gun safes failed to stop. Remember that even though it is the land of the free, we as human beings of our community must become morally responsible and protect each other from harm, not just turn a blind eye and hope for the best. Sure, but if you can't trust civilians enough to let them have guns, you can't trust the police or the military with them either. They're just as human, and just as prone to random violence. A uniform doesn't make someone a saint. Cops and military have registered weapons, regular training, mandatory training, are required to fill out reports for pulling out their weapons let alone psychiatric evaluations for firing their weapons. They are issued weapons and can have those weapons confiscated for any reason, they have a chain of command keeping tabs on their weapon use, their weapon training program lasts 90 days initially and more are required regularly after that. If you want citizens to be treated like cops and military--sure We just need a national registration, 6-16 week gun training courses, yearly retraining, and the ability to confiscate your weapons at any time for any reason.
The person I responded to said no one should have guns. I'm just making sure he realizes that this has to include police/military, or its hypocrisy.
Most police are pretty poorly trained as far as their guns go, I know my area's local cops only have to shoot 25 rounds a month. And that's just pure marksmanship training, it says nothing about how little conflict resolution training they get.
Have a source that says mostly the same stuff.
http://www.forcescience.org/morrison.pdf
|
On May 21 2013 23:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 23:16 Millitron wrote:On May 21 2013 14:19 LanTAs wrote:
There are enough idiots with weapons that can kill a person with just the push of a gas pedal, I do not see why we want people with the capability to kill a person with a pull of a finger. I find the arguments in support for gun advocacy weak and illogical, and honestly the people who support it try to derail arguments against it by making the arguments completely immoral and dangerous to society. Amendments were meant to be changed, or else why the fuck would we have this system in the US to change it? Is it just a symbolism of America's will to change, or rather its ignorance and resistance towards progression to a better society? Guns are inherently dangerous no matter how many precautions you take to reduce gun violence, so why even bother allowing anybody have them? Just remember that the majority of these massacres have been caused by people who have attained these weapons of mass destruction by legal ways, which the background checks and gun safes failed to stop. Remember that even though it is the land of the free, we as human beings of our community must become morally responsible and protect each other from harm, not just turn a blind eye and hope for the best. Sure, but if you can't trust civilians enough to let them have guns, you can't trust the police or the military with them either. They're just as human, and just as prone to random violence. A uniform doesn't make someone a saint. Cops and military have registered weapons, regular training, mandatory training, are required to fill out reports for pulling out their weapons let alone psychiatric evaluations for firing their weapons. They are issued weapons and can have those weapons confiscated for any reason, they have a chain of command keeping tabs on their weapon use, their weapon training program lasts 90 days initially and more are required regularly after that. If you want citizens to be treated like cops and military--sure We just need a national registration, 6-16 week gun training courses, yearly retraining, and the ability to confiscate your weapons at any time for any reason.
I didn't even have that much training and I was in the U.S. Marine Corps....2 weeks in boot camp (on shooting) and 1 re-qualification every year. As far as gun registration, why do we need one? The ability to confiscate your weapon at any time for any reason? Like I don't like your face give me your gun I am the police?
On May 21 2013 15:10 KwarK wrote:
I think you've misunderstood me. I was comparing the use of the constitution as an unquestionable tome of authority to the Koran which is believed to have been divinely dictated. In both cases I believe people ought to back up why they believe what they believe with arguments that have material proof and falsifiable claims. By all means seek out the reasons why the beliefs espoused in the constitution are good, find out what is still valid and relevant and support it because of that, not because of who wrote it or where.
As I said, the incident that provoked me to comment was an argument about the precise meaning of the words "well regulated" in the amendment which is nothing more than wrangling over a link to the tome of authority. Gun control be any more or less effective based on the interpretation of the word regulated, it couldn't be less relevant to the issue.
Well the discussion we were having was far more in-depth than "they said dis so it must be true". There was plenty of philosophical justifications for why the words were written as they were. I don't know where you are getting that anyone here is thinking it is an unquestionable tome of authority. Everyone here, I think, knows that we have Amendments for a reason. So unless someone in this discussion thinks every single Amendment is wrong and we need to roll the Constitution back to its original form than I can't really agree that anybody here thinks it is unquestionable. Theiving Magpie brought it up and called me out in the same post so that is the only reason I even had anything to say on the matter. It started with a discussion on whether or not some parts are concrete and if they should be interpreted concretely and whether or not some parts are unclear and if they should be interpreted loosely. You calling it just a piece of paper worth words is about the equivalent of calling our entire history of laws just words and pointless. There is a reason that document was written and why we adhere to it, so I don't know why you seem to think it's unimportant or that we feel the extreme opposite (that it is infallible, even though we make changes to it from time to time).
If there is posthumous deification of their words I would agree with you that they would (and should) find that abhorrent, I just don't think that is what we are dealing with that's all.
|
On May 21 2013 23:16 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 14:19 LanTAs wrote:
There are enough idiots with weapons that can kill a person with just the push of a gas pedal, I do not see why we want people with the capability to kill a person with a pull of a finger. I find the arguments in support for gun advocacy weak and illogical, and honestly the people who support it try to derail arguments against it by making the arguments completely immoral and dangerous to society. Amendments were meant to be changed, or else why the fuck would we have this system in the US to change it? Is it just a symbolism of America's will to change, or rather its ignorance and resistance towards progression to a better society? Guns are inherently dangerous no matter how many precautions you take to reduce gun violence, so why even bother allowing anybody have them? Just remember that the majority of these massacres have been caused by people who have attained these weapons of mass destruction by legal ways, which the background checks and gun safes failed to stop. Remember that even though it is the land of the free, we as human beings of our community must become morally responsible and protect each other from harm, not just turn a blind eye and hope for the best. Sure, but if you can't trust civilians enough to let them have guns, you can't trust the police or the military with them either. They're just as human, and just as prone to random violence. A uniform doesn't make someone a saint. Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 22:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 21 2013 15:10 KwarK wrote:
I think you've misunderstood me. I was comparing the use of the constitution as an unquestionable tome of authority to the Koran which is believed to have been divinely dictated. In both cases I believe people ought to back up why they believe what they believe with arguments that have material proof and falsifiable claims. By all means seek out the reasons why the beliefs espoused in the constitution are good, find out what is still valid and relevant and support it because of that, not because of who wrote it or where.
As I said, the incident that provoked me to comment was an argument about the precise meaning of the words "well regulated" in the amendment which is nothing more than wrangling over a link to the tome of authority. Gun control be any more or less effective based on the interpretation of the word regulated, it couldn't be less relevant to the issue. Being that the 2nd amendment is the only reason America has as much gun availability as it has now, and being that some people on this thread translate "well regulated militia being necessary" as being as little regulation as possible, it's pretty damn relevant to show them that the literal proof they have to keep gun rights actually tells them to keep it regulated. Without the 2nd amendment I can guarantee you that Reagan would have incited a full on gun ban. As we've been over before, in the context it was written in, "well regulated" didn't refer to government regulation, it referred to the militia being in good working order. Kwark, if you want arguments not based on the Constitution, just go back a few pages, this line of discussion hasn't been going on that long.
Just because they have it too does not justify the right of people to have guns. the point is to minimize the amount of fire arms, not to be able to have one just because the police and military have a gun.
If your militia being in "good working order" referred to the shooting of thousands across the country for reasons not associated with 1. protecting our country for invaders or 2. over throwing a corrupt and tyrannical government then I think you should redefine the definition of militia to something else.
|
Also, simply over generalizing my statement does not in any way change the argument that I am trying to write. If I said "I want fried chicken", it does not mean that I want roast, broiled, or barbeque chicken: it means I want some god damned fried chicken. In this case, the discussion is about gun control for civilians and I am making the argument that no citizen should be allowed to own or have a gun whatsoever for any reason. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
The UK does not allow the sale of guns BUT they have a higher violent crime rate than the United States. Nuff said.
Burglars hesitate to rob people in the states because of "that house might have a gun owner, fuck that noise".
The only people that guns kill are gangbangers, but that's their problem.
|
On May 22 2013 14:14 Hug-A-Hydralisk wrote:
The UK does not allow the sale of guns BUT they have a higher violent crime rate than the United States. Nuff said.
Not exactly The UK has different criteria for violent crime. Also if you include Scotland it really tips the rate higher. Although when you look at murder rates the US is a clear leader.
On May 22 2013 14:14 Hug-A-Hydralisk wrote:Burglars hesitate to rob people in the states because of "that house might have a gun owner, fuck that noise".
Bullshit, people who own guns have their homes invaded all the time.
On May 22 2013 14:14 Hug-A-Hydralisk wrote:The only people that guns kill are gangbangers, but that's their problem.
So everyone who has been killed by a gun is a gangbanger? You know I support gun rights too, but I realize shit posting isn't helpful when I'm trying to express my thoughts. It makes you look stupid if anything.
|
On May 22 2013 14:14 Hug-A-Hydralisk wrote:
The only people that guns kill are gangbangers, but that's their problem.
The ~19,000 that die to guns in the US each year by suicide are all gangbangers too, even the children.
|
On May 22 2013 14:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 14:14 Hug-A-Hydralisk wrote:
The only people that guns kill are gangbangers, but that's their problem. The ~19,000 that die to guns in the US each year by suicide are all gangbangers too, even the children.
Surely you don't mean to imply that in the absence of guns, these depressed disturbed individuals would reconsider killing themselves?
|
On May 22 2013 14:52 MountainDewJunkie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 14:42 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 22 2013 14:14 Hug-A-Hydralisk wrote:
The only people that guns kill are gangbangers, but that's their problem. The ~19,000 that die to guns in the US each year by suicide are all gangbangers too, even the children. Surely you don't mean to imply that in the absence of guns, these depressed disturbed individuals would reconsider killing themselves?
Research demonstrates that less gun prevalence = less suicide. One component of the finding is that those who attempt suicide and fail go on to die by other non-suicide means 90% of the time. Those who attempt suicide with a firearm are more likely to succeed on that attempt than those who attempt suicide with less lethal means.
Differences in suicide rates across the US are best explained by gun prevalence
This summary of the scientific literature on suicide in the United States emphasizes the importance of levels of household firearm ownership in explaining different rates of suicide over time and across states, households and genders.
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deboarh; Barber, Catherine. Suicide mortality in the United States: The importance of attending to method in understanding population-level disparities in the burden of suicide. Annual Review of Public Health 2012;33:393-408.
Across states, more guns = more suicide (Northeast)
We analyzed data on suicide and suicide attempts for states in the Northeast. Even after controlling for rates of attempted suicide, states with more guns had higher rates of suicide.
Miller, Matthew; Hemenway, David; Azrael, Deborah. Firearms and suicide in the Northeast. Journal of Trauma. 2004; 57:626-632.
Across states, more guns = more suicides (time series analysis)
Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and suicide over time, 1981-2001. Changes in the levels of household firearm gun ownership was significantly associated with changes in both firearm suicide and overall suicide, for men, women and children, even after controlling for region, unemployment, alcohol consumption and poverty. There was no relationship between changes in gun ownership and changes in non-firearm suicide.
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David; Lippman, Steven. “The association between changes in household firearm ownership and rates of suicide in the United States, 1981-2002.” Injury Prevention. 2006; 12:178-82.
The case-fatality rate for suicide attempts with guns is higher than other methods
Across the Northeast, case fatality rates ranged from over 90% for firearms to under 5% for drug overdoses, cutting and piercing (the most common methods of attempted suicide). Hospital workers rarely see the type of suicide (firearm suicide) that is most likely to end in death.
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. The epidemiology of case fatality rates for suicide in the Northeast. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2004; 723-30.
Lethal means reduction strategies can successfully reduce suicide
This article summarizes recent additions to the scientific literature about means restriction policies and suicide
Johnson, Rene M; Coyne-Beasley, Tamera. Lethal means reduction: what have we learned? Current Opinion in Pediatrics. 2009; 21: 635–640
Reducing access to lethal means can begin to reduce suicide rates today
This editorial in an issue of the flagship public health journal devoted entirely to veteran suicide emphasizes the importance of the availability of firearms in determining whether suicide attempts prove fatal.
Miller, Matthew. Preventing suicide by preventing lethal injury: the need to act on what we already know. American Journal of Public Health 2012; 102(S1):e1-3.
There are effective ways to reduce suicide without affecting mental health
This introduction to suicide as an international public health problem examines the role of promoting mental health, changing cultural norms, and reducing the availability of lethal means in preventing suicide
Barber, Catherine; Miller, Matthew. A public health approach to preventing suicide. In: Finkel, Madelon L. Perspectives in Public Health:Challenges for the Future. Santa Barbara CA: Praeger Publishers, 2010.
ED physicians and nurses rarely counsel about lethal means restriction
In one Boston emergency department, ED physicians and nurses believe they should counsel suicidal patients on lethal means restriction, but they often don’t. Psychiatrists working at the ED were much more likely to ask about firearms.
Betz, Marian E; Barber, Catherine; Miller, Matthew. Lethal means restriction as suicide prevention: variation in belief and practices among providers in an urban ED. Injury Prevention. 2010; 16:278-81.
Adolescents who commit suicide with a gun use the family gun
The vast majority of adolescent suicide guns come from parents of other family members.
Johnson, Rene M; Barber, Catherine; Azrael, Deborah; Clark, David E; Hemenway, David. Who are the owners of firearms used in adolescent suicides? Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior. 2010; 40:609-611.
The public does not understand the importance of method availability.
Over 2,700 respondents to a national random-digit-dial telephone survey were asked to estimate how many of the more than 1,000 people who had jumped from the Golden Gate Bridge would have gone on to commit suicide some other way if an effective suicide barrier had been installed. Over 1/3 of respondents estimated that none of the suicides could have been prevented. Respondents most likely to believe that no one could have been saved were cigarette smokers and gun owners.
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Belief in the inevitability of suicide: Results from a national survey. Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior. 2006; 36:1-11.
Mental health providers can be trained to reduce the risk of gun suicide
The CALM workshops were effective in improving mental health care providers’ attitudes, beliefs and skills regarding lethal means counseling.
Johnson, Rene M; Frank, Elaine; Ciocca, Mark; Barber, Catherine. Training mental health providers to reduce at-risk patients’ access to lethal means of suicide: Evaluation of the CALM project. Archives of Suicide Research. 2011 15(3):259-264.
Differences in mental health cannot explain the regional more guns = more suicide connection.
We analyzed the relationship of gun availability and suicide among differing age groups across the 9 US regions. Levels of gun ownership are highly correlated with suicide rates across all age groups, even after controlling for lifetime major depression and serious suicidal thoughts
Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. The association of rates of household handgun ownership, lifetime major depression and serious suicidal thoughts with rates of suicide across US census regions. Injury Prevention. 2002; 8:313-16.
|
Well then guns are a good thing, instead of people living in misery because of lack of guns, they can die on their own terms and a fairly simply and quick death. But then I guess we need to have an argument as to if suicide is even a bad thing, and thus, whether gun access to suicide correlation is even meaningful on a moral level.
Oh these threads are just so much fun :O
|
On May 22 2013 15:00 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Well then guns are a good thing, instead of people living in misery because of lack of guns, they can die on their own terms and a fairly simply and quick death.
Oh. So the firearm suicide rate is fine because it actually alleviates the overall level of misery in the US. Solid.
In all seriousness, many suicides aren't premeditated over a long period of time. Many suicides precipitate after crisis events in life, which are unpredictable and happen quickly -- the availability of lethal means significantly exacerbates the outcome of the attempt. If you're assuming everyone or the majority of people who attempt and fail suicide go on to live in misery you're making things up.
On May 22 2013 15:00 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
But then I guess we need to have an argument as to if suicide is even a bad thing, and thus, whether gun access to suicide correlation is even meaningful on a moral level.
Totally. We could have one of those funny ethics class sessions where everyone imagines moral scenarios where murder might not be bad, suicide isn't bad, etc. But first, like, we could argue about whether we can even talk about morals meaningfully at all, from some kind of crazy nihilistic perspective or something. We could probably work our way back to different theories about the big bang. Who knows. It's probably better not to fall down rabbit holes like that though.
|
On May 22 2013 15:00 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Well then guns are a good thing, instead of people living in misery because of lack of guns, they can die on their own terms and a fairly simply and quick death. But then I guess we need to have an argument as to if suicide is even a bad thing, and thus, whether gun access to suicide correlation is even meaningful on a moral level.
Oh these threads are just so much fun :O
Or you can avoid a discussion with someone who thinks suicides are a reason to advocate gun control because it's a waste of your time.
|
On May 22 2013 15:06 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 15:00 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Well then guns are a good thing, instead of people living in misery because of lack of guns, they can die on their own terms and a fairly simply and quick death. But then I guess we need to have an argument as to if suicide is even a bad thing, and thus, whether gun access to suicide correlation is even meaningful on a moral level.
Oh these threads are just so much fun :O Or you can avoid a discussion with someone who thinks suicides are a reason to advocate gun control because it's a waste of your time.
No worries. I had no intention of discussing anything. I just wanted to provide a pile of evidence showing why an outrageous comment was wrong.
|
On May 22 2013 01:51 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2013 15:10 KwarK wrote:
I think you've misunderstood me. I was comparing the use of the constitution as an unquestionable tome of authority to the Koran which is believed to have been divinely dictated. In both cases I believe people ought to back up why they believe what they believe with arguments that have material proof and falsifiable claims. By all means seek out the reasons why the beliefs espoused in the constitution are good, find out what is still valid and relevant and support it because of that, not because of who wrote it or where.
As I said, the incident that provoked me to comment was an argument about the precise meaning of the words "well regulated" in the amendment which is nothing more than wrangling over a link to the tome of authority. Gun control be any more or less effective based on the interpretation of the word regulated, it couldn't be less relevant to the issue. Well the discussion we were having was far more in-depth than "they said dis so it must be true". There was plenty of philosophical justifications for why the words were written as they were. I don't know where you are getting that anyone here is thinking it is an unquestionable tome of authority. Everyone here, I think, knows that we have Amendments for a reason. So unless someone in this discussion thinks every single Amendment is wrong and we need to roll the Constitution back to its original form than I can't really agree that anybody here thinks it is unquestionable. Theiving Magpie brought it up and called me out in the same post so that is the only reason I even had anything to say on the matter. It started with a discussion on whether or not some parts are concrete and if they should be interpreted concretely and whether or not some parts are unclear and if they should be interpreted loosely. You calling it just a piece of paper worth words is about the equivalent of calling our entire history of laws just words and pointless. There is a reason that document was written and why we adhere to it, so I don't know why you seem to think it's unimportant or that we feel the extreme opposite (that it is infallible, even though we make changes to it from time to time). If there is posthumous deification of their words I would agree with you that they would (and should) find that abhorrent, I just don't think that is what we are dealing with that's all.
But in a discussion about what should be legal/illegal, referring to what is currently legal/illegal is pointless without also referring to the reasons why it is currently legal/illegal. It is those reasons that are relevant to the discussion, not the current legal/illegal status of whatever is being discussed.
Talking specifically about gun control; the existence of the second amendment is irrelevant to whether or not guns should be legal.
This is how it is "just words". This is not the same as saying that the "entire history of laws is just words and pointless". When it comes to the discussion about whether or not guns should be legal, it shouldn't matter where an argument comes from. Just invoking the second amendment is appealing to authority, not to reason. If you agree with the reasoning behind the second amendment then you should appeal to that reasoning, not the amendment itself. If you don't the know the reasoning behind it then it is just appealing to authority.
On May 22 2013 15:00 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Well then guns are a good thing, instead of people living in misery because of lack of guns, they can die on their own terms and a fairly simply and quick death. But then I guess we need to have an argument as to if suicide is even a bad thing, and thus, whether gun access to suicide correlation is even meaningful on a moral level.
Oh these threads are just so much fun :O
Sometimes people have bad days, and if you struggle with depression or emotional stability then those bad days can be worse than for other people. Wanting to kill yourself one day doesn't mean you'll still want to the next day. It is for such situations that guns become a big problem because they make it so much easier for a person to kill themself on that bad day.
|
On May 22 2013 15:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 15:00 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Well then guns are a good thing, instead of people living in misery because of lack of guns, they can die on their own terms and a fairly simply and quick death. Oh. So the firearm suicide rate is fine because it actually alleviates the overall level of misery in the US. Solid. In all seriousness, many suicides aren't premeditated over a long period of time. Many suicides precipitate after crisis events in life, which are unpredictable and happen quickly -- the availability of lethal means significantly exacerbates the outcome of the attempt. If you're assuming everyone or the majority of people who attempt and fail suicide go on to live in misery you're making things up.
Lethal means are widely available regardless of gun control, whether it's sharp objects, medication, tall buildings, or vehicles.
|
On May 22 2013 16:22 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 15:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 22 2013 15:00 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Well then guns are a good thing, instead of people living in misery because of lack of guns, they can die on their own terms and a fairly simply and quick death. Oh. So the firearm suicide rate is fine because it actually alleviates the overall level of misery in the US. Solid. In all seriousness, many suicides aren't premeditated over a long period of time. Many suicides precipitate after crisis events in life, which are unpredictable and happen quickly -- the availability of lethal means significantly exacerbates the outcome of the attempt. If you're assuming everyone or the majority of people who attempt and fail suicide go on to live in misery you're making things up. Lethal means are widely available regardless of gun control, whether it's sharp objects, medication, tall buildings, or vehicles.
According to the suicide literature guns are more lethal than the other common methods. Tall buildings are irrelevant -- of course they are quite lethal, but they are quite rare in comparison. Hand grenade suicides are also quite lethal, rare, and irrelevant.
The case-fatality rate for suicide attempts with guns is higher than other methods
Across the Northeast, case fatality rates ranged from over 90% for firearms to under 5% for drug overdoses, cutting and piercing (the most common methods of attempted suicide). Hospital workers rarely see the type of suicide (firearm suicide) that is most likely to end in death.
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. The epidemiology of case fatality rates for suicide in the Northeast. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2004; 723-30.
Reducing access to lethal means can begin to reduce suicide rates today
This editorial in an issue of the flagship public health journal devoted entirely to veteran suicide emphasizes the importance of the availability of firearms in determining whether suicide attempts prove fatal.
Miller, Matthew. Preventing suicide by preventing lethal injury: the need to act on what we already know. American Journal of Public Health 2012; 102(S1):e1-3.
|
On May 22 2013 16:22 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 15:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 22 2013 15:00 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Well then guns are a good thing, instead of people living in misery because of lack of guns, they can die on their own terms and a fairly simply and quick death. Oh. So the firearm suicide rate is fine because it actually alleviates the overall level of misery in the US. Solid. In all seriousness, many suicides aren't premeditated over a long period of time. Many suicides precipitate after crisis events in life, which are unpredictable and happen quickly -- the availability of lethal means significantly exacerbates the outcome of the attempt. If you're assuming everyone or the majority of people who attempt and fail suicide go on to live in misery you're making things up. Lethal means are widely available regardless of gun control, whether it's sharp objects, medication, tall buildings, or vehicles.
But guns are the quickest and easiest (if you own one). Pulling a trigger is far easier than slitting a wrist. Most people don't have enough medication lying around for it to be fatal. Jumping from a tall building requires access to a tall building. Even killing yourself with a vehicle requires some planning and effort. With a gun though, it's just pick up gun and pull trigger.
As FDM said; many suicides aren't premeditated over a long period of time. It is those cases where the inclusion of a gun makes a big difference. FDM also kindly provided a lot of references for this. (Thanks FDM).
|
On May 22 2013 16:30 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 16:22 sunprince wrote:On May 22 2013 15:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 22 2013 15:00 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Well then guns are a good thing, instead of people living in misery because of lack of guns, they can die on their own terms and a fairly simply and quick death. Oh. So the firearm suicide rate is fine because it actually alleviates the overall level of misery in the US. Solid. In all seriousness, many suicides aren't premeditated over a long period of time. Many suicides precipitate after crisis events in life, which are unpredictable and happen quickly -- the availability of lethal means significantly exacerbates the outcome of the attempt. If you're assuming everyone or the majority of people who attempt and fail suicide go on to live in misery you're making things up. Lethal means are widely available regardless of gun control, whether it's sharp objects, medication, tall buildings, or vehicles. According to the suicide literature guns are more lethal than the other common methods. Tall buildings are irrelevant -- of course they are quite lethal, but they are quite rare in comparison. Hand grenade suicides are also quite lethal, rare, and irrelevant. Show nested quote +The case-fatality rate for suicide attempts with guns is higher than other methods
Across the Northeast, case fatality rates ranged from over 90% for firearms to under 5% for drug overdoses, cutting and piercing (the most common methods of attempted suicide). Hospital workers rarely see the type of suicide (firearm suicide) that is most likely to end in death.
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. The epidemiology of case fatality rates for suicide in the Northeast. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2004; 723-30. Show nested quote +Reducing access to lethal means can begin to reduce suicide rates today
This editorial in an issue of the flagship public health journal devoted entirely to veteran suicide emphasizes the importance of the availability of firearms in determining whether suicide attempts prove fatal.
Miller, Matthew. Preventing suicide by preventing lethal injury: the need to act on what we already know. American Journal of Public Health 2012; 102(S1):e1-3.
This assumes that people are equally inclined towards suicide. This is not the case.
Many suicide "attempts" are not intended (or fully intended) to result in death. Those people will choose non-lethal or improbably lethal means regardless of firearms availability. By contrast, those who are determined to commit suicide will choose highly lethal means, and plenty of those are available regardless of firearms availability. Suicide by train also has a 90% fatality rate, and is widely available in many places. Suicide by hanging also has a fatality rate of over 70% and is available virtually always.
Once again, you're making arguments without considering replacement effects. That is, unless you can provide evidence or logic to show that gun control will not simply result in people choosing different means for suicide (or homicide), then you don't have an argument to show that gun control would make a difference.
|
On May 22 2013 16:35 Melliflue wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 16:22 sunprince wrote:On May 22 2013 15:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 22 2013 15:00 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Well then guns are a good thing, instead of people living in misery because of lack of guns, they can die on their own terms and a fairly simply and quick death. Oh. So the firearm suicide rate is fine because it actually alleviates the overall level of misery in the US. Solid. In all seriousness, many suicides aren't premeditated over a long period of time. Many suicides precipitate after crisis events in life, which are unpredictable and happen quickly -- the availability of lethal means significantly exacerbates the outcome of the attempt. If you're assuming everyone or the majority of people who attempt and fail suicide go on to live in misery you're making things up. Lethal means are widely available regardless of gun control, whether it's sharp objects, medication, tall buildings, or vehicles. But guns are the quickest and easiest (if you own one). Pulling a trigger is far easier than slitting a wrist. Most people don't have enough medication lying around for it to be fatal. Jumping from a tall building requires access to a tall building. Even killing yourself with a vehicle requires some planning and effort. With a gun though, it's just pick up gun and pull trigger. As FDM said; many suicides aren't premeditated over a long period of time. It is those cases where the inclusion of a gun makes a big difference. FDM also kindly provided a lot of references for this. (Thanks FDM).
Who said anything about slitting your wrist? You could simply stab your heart/stomach or slice your gut open if you really wanted to. Wrist slitting is generally done as part of self-injury, which is another issue altogether.
Killing yourself with a vehicle requires only that you drive at a high speed and hit something solid. That's not a whole lot of effort. You could, in fact, be commuting home when you develop a suicidal impulse, and kill yourself a minute later, long before you acquire a firearm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
