In the case of people of sound mind having good reason to end their lives, and the desire to do so, in the current legal/cultural environment surrounding assisted suicide, taking their guns away would be inhumane.
In the case of people of sound mind having good reason to end their lives, and the desire to do so, in the current legal/cultural environment surrounding assisted suicide, taking their guns away would be inhumane.
I would argue that most of the people who are truly in this situation are already in hospitals with no access to firearms regardless.
Better to limit firearm access and simultaneously engage on right to suicide.
"Successful" suicide rates used to be higher among men than women because men tended to use guns and women tended to overdose. That has since evened out now that more women own and use firearms, but I think it shows that fewer people would die of suicide if we took away their guns.
"Successful" suicide rates used to be higher among men than women because men tended to use guns and women tended to overdose. That has since evened out now that more women own and use firearms, but I think it shows that fewer people would die of suicide if we took away their guns.
While I would argue against using it as strong evidence, it should be considered - There was not really a strong overall drop in suicide here, only suicide with firearms. Usage of other methods rose accordingly, and while there was a small drop overall, and there has so far been a continual decline in suicide, it's pretty hard to pin that on gun control.
I was told by the most reasonable level-headed person I know (besides my politically apathetic friends) that when guns are used in self defense, they are only fired %8 of the time. My Google-fu is not particularly good, however I found no evidence for or against this information. Could anyone help me verify this?
"Successful" suicide rates used to be higher among men than women because men tended to use guns and women tended to overdose. That has since evened out now that more women own and use firearms, but I think it shows that fewer people would die of suicide if we took away their guns.
While I would argue against using it as strong evidence, it should be considered - There was not really a strong overall drop in suicide here, only suicide with firearms. Usage of other methods rose accordingly, and while there was a small drop overall, and there has so far been a continual decline in suicide, it's pretty hard to pin that on gun control.
The idea is that if nobody had a gun then they would resort to less effective methods of suicide. I don't know whether or not gun control would result in that.
"Successful" suicide rates used to be higher among men than women because men tended to use guns and women tended to overdose. That has since evened out now that more women own and use firearms, but I think it shows that fewer people would die of suicide if we took away their guns.
While I would argue against using it as strong evidence, it should be considered - There was not really a strong overall drop in suicide here, only suicide with firearms. Usage of other methods rose accordingly, and while there was a small drop overall, and there has so far been a continual decline in suicide, it's pretty hard to pin that on gun control.
The idea is that if nobody had a gun then they would resort to less effective methods of suicide. I don't know whether or not gun control would result in that.
Oh, I mistook what you meant - you said fewer people die of suicide, I took it to mean fewer suicides, when you literally meant fewer people die from attempting it.
I was told by the most reasonable level-headed person I know (besides my politically apathetic friends) that when guns are used in self defense, they are only fired %8 of the time. My Google-fu is not particularly good, however I found no evidence for or against this information. Could anyone help me verify this?
Anecdotal Evidence Ahoy!
Several folks I've talked to who own firearms claim that they have been used for self defense, and none of them claim to have ever had to fire a shot in any self defense situation.
Guns can work to discourage violence the same way being 6'3 and built like a truck can. The intimidation factor is significant. It's difficult to determine whether or not the gun actually deterred any violence because a situation in which someone flashes their gun and someone else stops being belligerent isn't necessarily a situation that would have devolved into violence in the first place.
Incidents like that wouldn't often be reported to the police either, which means we don't have a ready database of such incidents to study. I'm not sure is there is any practical way to measure this.
Anecdotally I can say that neither me nor any of my friends has ever been in a situation where the use of a firearm for defense has been necessary or would have improved matters. Seems like a rather rare thing in the first place, unless you frequent biker bars or backyard wrestling events.
As a frequenter of backyard wrestling events, I question the need for firearms at such an event. I think a two-by-four or a folding chair is much more appropriate. Barbed wire bat if you think it's going to get ugly.
As a frequenter of backyard wrestling events, I question the need for firearms at such an event. I think a two-by-four or a folding chair is much more appropriate. Barbed wire bat if you think it's going to get ugly.
My personal favorite is fluorescent lighting tubes, although wiffle bats with thumbtacks glued to them are also pretty cool.
(Yes, I've seen these at backyard wrestling events. No, I didn't attend personally -- but they used to be on local public access TV where I was living at the time).
Well, the NRA had their press conference today and their solution is "for armed police officers to be posted in every American school to stop the next killer "waiting in the wings."
Let's not address the mental health issue, or even start a conversation about gun control. The obvious solution is to turn our schools into armed fortresses... yeah, that's gonna work.
Assuming the armed guards are competent enough (and that may be a huge assumption), it may work, but that's not exactly the kind of world we want to live in either. The best possible results of having armed guards at schools are either:
Wackos avoid schools entirely because they're going to get shot (unlikely since, well, they are wackos who probably aren't expecting to survive anyway)
Wackos get shot as soon as possible after showing their weapons and revealing they are wackos.
I already explained the problem with #1 above. The problem with #2 is that if you wait until a wacko pulls out his guns before you take him out, there is a very good chance he'll hit some innocents before you can take him down. So okay, instead of 23 dead, we have 2 or 3 dead, not including the wacko. Still unacceptable. Also, who knows how skilled the guard will be -- he/she may in fact inadvertently take out some innocents in the process of taking out the wacko. Even the most skilled sharpshooter in the world may have trouble only going after the gunman in a completely chaotic scenario that would break out if said gunman is trying to go on a killing spree in a school. If you think a preemptive shooting of any suspicious people is the solution (aka a school version of "stand your ground"), then you risk killing innocents who happen to be visiting/passing near/etc. the school. Also unacceptable if we assume any loss of innocent life to be unacceptable.
This is, at best, security theater a la a lot of the TSA's crap, and at worst will lead to more tragedies of a slightly different sort.
News is just starting to come together. The first reports I saw were 4 killed, 1 seriously wounded, and up to 11 shot total. We're just starting to get a clear picture of what actually happened.
It is true that rapid response by armed law enforcement is the most effective resolution of a mass shooting situation. The key there is the LEO: not the gun. But having a LEO in every single school in the nation every day? That's a ridiculous idea. Having a BARNEY there instead? Both ridiculous and dangerous.
Comments
There are stats that men are more successful in suicide attempts than women largely correlated with men being more likely to have access to a firearm.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/case-fatality/index.html
From those data, the fatality rate is 85% for firearms, 69% for suffocation, 31% for falling, and all others are below 10%.
Better to limit firearm access and simultaneously engage on right to suicide.
Several folks I've talked to who own firearms claim that they have been used for self defense, and none of them claim to have ever had to fire a shot in any self defense situation.
Guns can work to discourage violence the same way being 6'3 and built like a truck can. The intimidation factor is significant. It's difficult to determine whether or not the gun actually deterred any violence because a situation in which someone flashes their gun and someone else stops being belligerent isn't necessarily a situation that would have devolved into violence in the first place.
Incidents like that wouldn't often be reported to the police either, which means we don't have a ready database of such incidents to study. I'm not sure is there is any practical way to measure this.
(Yes, I've seen these at backyard wrestling events. No, I didn't attend personally -- but they used to be on local public access TV where I was living at the time).
Oh, and apparently the backyard wrestling I used to watch on public access TV has a website now.
http://news.yahoo.com/nra-calls-armed-police-officer-every-school-162851713.html
Let's not address the mental health issue, or even start a conversation about gun control. The obvious solution is to turn our schools into armed fortresses... yeah, that's gonna work.
- Wackos avoid schools entirely because they're going to get shot (unlikely since, well, they are wackos who probably aren't expecting to survive anyway)
- Wackos get shot as soon as possible after showing their weapons and revealing they are wackos.
I already explained the problem with #1 above. The problem with #2 is that if you wait until a wacko pulls out his guns before you take him out, there is a very good chance he'll hit some innocents before you can take him down. So okay, instead of 23 dead, we have 2 or 3 dead, not including the wacko. Still unacceptable. Also, who knows how skilled the guard will be -- he/she may in fact inadvertently take out some innocents in the process of taking out the wacko. Even the most skilled sharpshooter in the world may have trouble only going after the gunman in a completely chaotic scenario that would break out if said gunman is trying to go on a killing spree in a school. If you think a preemptive shooting of any suspicious people is the solution (aka a school version of "stand your ground"), then you risk killing innocents who happen to be visiting/passing near/etc. the school. Also unacceptable if we assume any loss of innocent life to be unacceptable.This is, at best, security theater a la a lot of the TSA's crap, and at worst will lead to more tragedies of a slightly different sort.
So there was a mass shooting in Pennsylvania during the NRA press conference...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/21/4-dead-including-gunman-in-rural-pennsylvania-shooting/
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/pennsylvania-shooting-four-shot-dead-1500988
News is just starting to come together. The first reports I saw were 4 killed, 1 seriously wounded, and up to 11 shot total. We're just starting to get a clear picture of what actually happened.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#50265482
Seems like not many people saw the whole "armed guard in every school" thing coming though.
Out of all of the forum gun enthusiasts, how many have police or military backgrounds?