A murder/suicide to be avoided?

[sleddriver]

When Mores are Sufficient, Laws are Unnecessary. When Mores are Insufficient, Laws Are Unenforceable.

Scary thought, but true. Their myopic focus on guns completely misses this. Yet they don't at all want to talk about MENTAL ILLNESS.

When's the last time you heard the MSM refer to a mass-murderer as a "homocidal maniac" or a "psychopathic killer"? What? Enough people didn't die? Just how many does it take? >2000? Did they even then?

Certainly not in LA, nor in North(?) South(?)Carolina. Instead, all the air in the room was sucked out over the Confederate flag. Typical knee-jerk reaction from the very crowd who always shoots first and asks the wrong questions, later, thus constantly arriving at the wrong conclusion...

Only such "poor shooters" could repeatedly miss the side of a barn....and blame the barn for being in the wrong place.

How convienent...when the TRUTH is so inconvienent it's completely missed by the current ruling regime.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
No one here thinks that method is appropriate, either. Depending on the state, your described method describes a couple felonious acts, as well...

Agreed. I was pointing out that some people think that such a scenario is possible and everyone out there who likes guns wants the system to be like that.

Some of our regulations with antiques are pretty reasonable, or even with general black powder stuff. Theoretically, mail order might be possible with something like a flintlock up here, but I've never really checked.

The licensing setup for such firearms is vastly different.

 

[dnewton3]

Some of you get it; some don't ...

I offer these as more fodder for discussion:
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/01/2...ml?intcmp=hpbt4
and this
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/20.../?intcmp=hplnws

You see, in the former, there were mass executions due to the inherent violent nature of the human condition. There were no firearms back then, 10,000 years ago. And yet one group savagely killed others indiscriminately for some motive that today, we might well define as a crime.

In the later, there's proof that nationalized criminalization of owning weapons does not stop individuals or organizations from using weapons to kill. MX has a very violent drug culture, and their government struggles to curtain the violence, partially because of tyranny and corruption. So banning guns does not solve the issue, and it may in fact exacerbate it.

Google up "China mass stabbings" and see the VOLUMINOUS stories of how many people are attacked and killed. It's a rampage over there. And not one gun is legally owned by the general public. But that does not stop murder and suicide.



My point in the initial post was that the State of NY has a tight gun law structure, but this guy killed others with a knife. Yet no one cries out for knife control as they do when guns are used at the tool. People with a bias (either way in this topic) often refuse to look at facts and focus rather on their emotions. Objects are tools. People kill people.

Controlling the objects does not stop crime; it only encourages people to find other means of attack.

And some would argue that guns (specifically high capacity, quick discharge) increase the likelihood of mass killing. That is true. But then again so did the stainless-steel pressure vessel at the Boston Marathon, and yet no one cried out to control cookware ....

It's not about the type of the weapon used. It's about the intent of how it's used.

Criminalizing/banning one particular type weapon does not in any manner prevent people from using other tools for the same motives, thereby achieving the same results.

 

[greenjp]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Some of you get it; some don't ...

I get it. What I don't get is resorting to terrible attempts at humor and illegitimate logic to make the point.

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
You see, in the former, there were mass executions due to the inherent violent nature of the human condition. There were no firearms back then, 10,000 years ago. And yet one group savagely killed others indiscriminately for some motive that today, we might well define as a crime.

And yet as soon as firearms became available, people starting using them, to great effect, to kill each other. If the tool doesn't matter (..."achieving the same results") why is this the case? Perhaps because the results, in fact, are not the same?

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
But that does not stop murder and suicide.

Might want to do some research on this one. Access to a firearm is demonstrably linked to effective suicide:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
My point in the initial post was that the State of NY has a tight gun law structure, but this guy killed others with a knife. Yet no one cries out for knife control as they do when guns are used at the tool.

That's because serious people acknowledge that a knife and a firearm are inherently different. I googled "beaten to death with a chair" and got some hits, but I'm not going to cynically ask why we don't have chair control.

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
People with a bias (either way in this topic) often refuse to look at facts and focus rather on their emotions. Objects are tools. People kill people.

Correct. And some tools just happen to make it very easy for someone to kill a lot of people.

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
And some would argue that guns (specifically high capacity, quick discharge) increase the likelihood of mass killing. That is true. But then again so did the stainless-steel pressure vessel at the Boston Marathon, and yet no one cried out to control cookware ....

Again, serious people acknowledge the difference. They also acknowledge the fact that firearms are frequently used for the purpose of killing, while pressure cookers are not.

A question for you is this - do you accept that restrictions of any kinds on weapons ownership are reasonable? If so, of what nature?

jeff

 

[Astro14]

Jeff - we have lots of restrictions on ownership, even in this country.

Some are reasonable, some (like the restrictions on suppressors) are not.

But with all those restriction, we've addressed the "risk" side.

I've yet to hear you address the rights side, the side I brought up above.

The Harvard University study you quote addresses only cost, not benefit...and that's what is missing from your discussion.

Do people have a right to defend themselves? Supreme Court thinks it is enumerated in our Constitution, and while I don't agree with all of their decisions, I do agree with this one. It is both an inherent right, and in our country, an enumerated one.

If so, what means, effective means, not fantasy of martial arts, or other options that apply only to the young and strong, do you think we should allow for the exercise of that right?

In answering that question, please spare me the "live in fear" argument. Not everyone carrying a gun is a fear-driven clinger, despite the ugly rhetoric to stereotype a whole group of citizens, who, on average, are far less likely to commit crime that either average citizens, or police officers themselves.

 

[greenjp]

Astro, you get it. You are asking sensible questions and making valid points. For the record (again) I am a supporter of the right of personal gun ownership. To address some of your points:

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Jeff - we have lots of restrictions on ownership, even in this country.

Some are reasonable, some (like the restrictions on suppressors) are not.

Indeed. I'm not sure we have the correct mix of restrictions. I think some should go and some new ones should probably be introduced. To me, this is so obvious that it doesn't need to be said, but then there are folks who say black and white stuff like "objects are tools" as if that's the end of the discussion. If objects are just tools then I should be allowed to roll around in one of these right?

(I recognize this is an argument to absurdity bordering on straw man, but it follows my point about people here refusing to acknowledge any nuance or validity of opposing arguments)

Originally Posted By: Astro14
I've yet to hear you address the rights side, the side I brought up above...
Do people have a right to defend themselves? Supreme Court thinks it is enumerated in our Constitution, and while I don't agree with all of their decisions, I do agree with this one. It is both an inherent right, and in our country, an enumerated one.

Agreed. I also believe that with that right comes responsibilities, some of which might be inconvenient (background checks, registration), bothersome, or present a liability (for instance I believe adults who's firearms fall into the hands of children resulting in accidental shootings should be severely prosecuted).

Of course criminals will choose not to follow the laws, that's why they're criminals. The laws are there to establish the punishments for when they do, which should be harsh and unyielding. The argument that since criminals will break the laws that we shouldn't have those laws is an odd one, and typically only trotted out when discussing gun laws.

My beef with the OP and some of the other posts in this thread are 1) bad humor is an offense against us all

; 2) intelligence-insulting arguments for the case I basically agree with makes us look bad; 3) they reduce a really complex issue into a black and white, "you're either with us or against us" thing that renders any possibility of real discussion impossible from the get go.

jeff

 

[Astro14]

So, we do share some perspective in this debate..

One of my biggest frustrations is the lax enforcement of existing laws. For example; the ten year, Federal sentence for buying a gun for another person who is prohibited from buying or owning. Known as a "straw man" purchase, it's like buying booze for an underage kid.

Yet buying booze is prosecuted far more consistently, and severely, than straw purchasing. This is a big source of guns in the hands of criminals.

The girl who bought Harris & Kleebold (Columbine) 3 out of their 4 their guns committed a felony. They were underage and prohibited from owning any kind of gun. She committed a Federal felony. Three counts. Three felonies that directly contributed to one of the worst mass shootings in our history. You can imagine my disgust, when I happened to read in Denver Post a year later, that she wasn't going to be prosecuted for that!

I'll repeat that point: she committed three Federal crimes, provided illegal weapons to mass murderes, and was not prosecuted.

But her story is common. Lots of people have bought guns for known criminals. Gang members in inner cities often get their guns this way. Those gang members don't go to gun shows, because gun shows are crawling with cops. Yet almost none of these felonious acts are prosecuted.

Lax enforcement abounds. 400,000 people fail background checks every year. Most of them are prohibited from owning a weapon, so their purchase attempt constitutes a misdemeanor. Fewer than a hundred face prosecution every year.

Gun shows, semi-automatic rifles, and magazines are the targets of the gun control crowd these days because those topics are sexy and sell papers, airtime, etc. They used to bombard us with the dangers of "Saturday night specials" and how cheap guns ended up in criminal hands.

But gun shows are not a significant source of illegal weapons used in crime, so we're barking up the wrong tree. What we need to do is go after the source of those guns in the hands of criminals: straw purchasers. What we could do, right now, is prosecute and enforce those restrictions that we have on the books.

That would make a difference. That would be taking positive action to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

But good law enforcement doesn't sell airtime, or papers, or mouse clicks...so, the folks in the media, and those with an agenda, continue to sell the idea that gets them attention: "it's the gun show/rifle/magazine/clinger that's the problem...we have to fix/ban/disarm them".

And people who've not thought about the problem, people who know nothing about the operation of firearms, and people who are ignorant of current laws all jump on that bandwagon of ignorance and are amazed that anyone could oppose their "common sense" approach. An approach that ignores the easy, good fixes, and simply stereotypes a group of people.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: weasley


How many more mass shootings have to happen? What is the acceptable number? Or how few people can be killed in an incident to keep it from being labelled as a "mass shooting" and thus keep it out of the news?

Again...Bad people with guns cause murders. Not guns themselves. These bad people are frequently not punished until they make news.
Originally Posted By: weasley

As for the apparently dogmatic recital of "my right to bear arms enshrined in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution"... you do know these things can be repealed, right? Say, whatever happened to that 18th Amendment...?

Besides, as I understand it (coming from a country with no written constitution.... well, there was that Magna Carta thing but we kind of realised much of that was out-dated) rights under the Constitution are essentially up for debate and interpretation and ebb and flow at the will of the courts.

You come from a nation steeped in past History. Its natural you don't understand the "Rights" we as Americans posses. The 2nd is a Right which came to be bc the Leaders of "Your" country did not feel their "Subjects" (not Citizens) should have rights. That's the Genesis of our 2nd Amendment. Trust me it will never be repealed in my lifetime.

"Dogmatic Recital" shows your lack of understanding "Rights" in my country.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: greenjp
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
But that does not stop murder and suicide.

Might want to do some research on this one. Access to a firearm is demonstrably linked to effective suicide:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/


I get what they are saying, but it hasn't reduced the rates at all in Australia...

Quote:
Firearms are the most lethal and most common method of suicide in the U.S. More people who die by suicide use a gun than all other methods combined. Suicide attempts with a firearm are almost always fatal, while those with other methods are less likely to kill. Nine out of ten people who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide later.

Every U.S. study that has examined the relationship has found that access to firearms is a risk factor for suicides. Firearm owners are not more suicidal than non-firearm owners; rather, their suicide attempts are more likely to be fatal. Many suicide attempts are made with little planning during a short-term crisis period. If highly lethal means are made less available to impulsive attempters and they substitute less lethal means, or temporarily postpone their attempt, the odds are increased that they will survive.


Clearly more lethal, but what they are twisting is that same number of people try it, the gun makes it more successful, so more guns means more (completed) suicides.

But here in Australia the reduction in guns has had no real impact on suicides...TPTB who report a suicide with a firearm also as a homicide with a firearm report that firearm homicides including suicides are down, but not that suicides are still charging along at their averge pace.

Males have replaced their previously limited now difficult access to firearms with other violent and effective means. Single motor vehicles at high speed into oncoming trucks or against stationary objects, hanging, and big jumps are the usual M.O. for a male. Carbon monoxide from exhaust is how one guy from our gun club ended it all. Cat Cons have limited the effectiveness of this technique...didn't stop people ending it.

Males tend to adopt highly effective suicide paths...usually violent.

Females tend to adopt other suicide paths, ones that enable intervention (e.g. pills, slashed wrists), and demonstrate their cry for help.

Removing firearms from the community won't stop males violently, and effectively ending their lives.

The last few facts are from my discussions with a friend who used to be editor of a regional newspaper, and was reporting on the suicide crisis that was taking place in Rural Australia, and my sister, a psychologist, who has donated thousands of hours to lifeline and suicide prevention lines (and had the specific training in each).

A guy with a gun/car/rope, isn't making the phonecall.

 

[greenjp]

I won't pretend to be an expert on the subject, just reading the synopses on that site seems to suggest that in many populations, reducing the availability of lethal means (firearms being dramatically more lethal than everything else) does in fact reduce overall suicide rates, not just suicides by that particular method. It's easy to assume that if someone wants to do it, they'll do it, but factor in impulsiveness, the evidence that most people (90%) who survive an attempt do not later die from another, and it would seem that reducing the lethality of the first method used would lead to an overall reduction. They talk about some studies in Asia related to poisoning that support this. And here's one regarding firearms from Israel:

"About 90% of all suicides in the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), a mandatory population-based army drafting all youth ages 18-21, during 2003-2005 were firearm suicides. Since many IDF soldiers go home on the weekends, the IDF changed its weapons policy in 2006 to require that firearms remain on base when soldiers take a weekend leave. After this policy change, the total suicide rate in the IDF decreased by 40% in 2007-2008. Most of this decrease was due to a decrease in weekend firearm suicides, with no significant change in weekday suicide rates. These data support previous research indicating restricting firearms access is effective in decreasing overall suicide rates."

Not sure what the "previous research" referenced there is but that is their summary conclusion.

The FAQ is actually pretty interesting and touches on many of the topics being mentioned:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/faq/

jeff

 

[Garak]

No one has ever adequately demonstrated that suicides by a comparatively small minority of the population are a good enough reason to regulate firearms. Of course, zero firearms means zero deaths by firearms in suicide. What's your point?

 

[Shannow]

Not sure how the immense pressures of Conscription make a valid community reference for building a case in the US...

so

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uplo...liament-Rev.pdf

 

[greenjp]

Originally Posted By: Garak
No one has ever adequately demonstrated that suicides by a comparatively small minority of the population are a good enough reason to regulate firearms. Of course, zero firearms means zero deaths by firearms in suicide. What's your point?

I was rebutting a comment made that changing the presence of firearms won't affect murder and suicide - that they're just tools and only the intent matters. I think there's enough evidence to suggest that the suicide is affected, that's all. Make of it what you will.

I would point out that we already regulate things, particularly drugs (both legal and illegal), discrimination, ADA-type stuff, etc based on their effect on comparatively small minorities. What rises to the level of needing regulation, or should be taken into account when considering it? How does this knowledge inform the crafting of regulations? That's the essence of the debate.

jeff

 

[greenjp]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Not sure how the immense pressures of Conscription make a valid community reference for building a case in the US...

Me neither. But, the implied causation - reduced access to firearms on the weekend resulted in a 40% decrease in weekend suicides, with no corresponding increase in weekday suicide, is interesting. The closing statement that "These data support previous research indicating restricting firearms access is effective in decreasing overall suicide rates" further supports. Unfortunately that "previous research" isn't readily presented.

As for the linked study, it's interesting but it seems to veer into some odd territory (not sure what 3D printing has to do with any of this at this time) and the author is a current Fox News

columnist. It also seems from a quick perusal that their research is entirely, shall we say, one sided. I'm not sure it's an unbiased source.

That said, they discuss the apparent lack of impact of the Australian buy back program. Apparently only 1/3 of the guns in the country were initially bought back? Dunno if this is anything like what's been reported about buy backs in this country, where people turn in old and non-functioning guns for cash and just keep the ones they still want? Interesting to illustrate that apparent decreases in various crimes track with other patterns independent of the buy back, but given that there were still millions of guns in circulation I'm not sure it's really saying anything.

jeff

 

[Garak]

Do note that firearms are more widely useful and have more purposes than, say, many types of prescription medication. I can go target shooting, hunting, and I can collect, or use them for my livelihood by selling them, or I can protect myself, all with a firearm. If I use a few common sense rules that are readily learned, I won't have problems. I have little use in purchasing blood pressure medication without a prescription, and we have enough problems with prescriptions as it is, let alone opening that up.

I'm well served to see a physician before I start medicating a condition. I'm well served to have that prescription filled by a pharmacist. I need expert advice to properly use prescription medication. If I "wing it," I'm going to get into trouble. Firearms, however, have some very universal rules, most of which involve not pointing them at oneself or other people.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: greenjp
That said, they discuss the apparent lack of impact of the Australian buy back program. Apparently only 1/3 of the guns in the country were initially bought back? Dunno if this is anything like what's been reported about buy backs in this country, where people turn in old and non-functioning guns for cash and just keep the ones they still want? Interesting to illustrate that apparent decreases in various crimes track with other patterns independent of the buy back, but given that there were still millions of guns in circulation I'm not sure it's really saying anything.


A bunch of guns...all semi autos, and pump shotguns were declared illegal, and had to be turned in..thus 1/3 of the guns.

You could hand in a bolt action, or revolver, or over/under but got nothing for it.

Here's some more statistics...from a non Fox source...

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

http://www.mindframe-media.info/for-media/reporting-suicide/facts-and-stats

Quote:
Suicide rates in Australia peaked in 1963 (17.5 per 100,000), declining to 11.3 per 100,000 in 1984, and climbing back to 14.6 in 1997. Rates have been lower than this since that year. The age-standardised suicide rate for persons in 2013 was 10.9 per 100,000 compared with 11.3 per 100,000.


Funny that the peak in 1997 was when all of those guns were taken off the streets.

Here's the orchestrator of the Oz buyback, and HIS claims for how effective it was.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-17/howard-adds-voice-to-us-gun-control-debate/4469482

Quote:
Writing in the New York Times, Mr Howard said he did not want to "lecture" Americans on how they should respond to Mr Obama's plan, but pointed to his experience in introducing tough gun laws following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.
.
.
.

Despite the strong opposition from some rural communities, Mr Howard says the new laws had majority support across Australia and they have been shown to be effective.

"There is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate," Mr Howard wrote.

"In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres - each with more than four victims - causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996.

"Few Australians would deny that their country is safer today as a consequence of gun control."


Nah, no spin there...cept a hostage crisis the other year, with weapons that have been illegal, and bought back since 1996.

And we are being used as an example of how this stuff works...

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/...shootings-in-us

Quote:
“When Australia had a mass killing – I think it was in Tasmania – about 25 years ago, it was just so shocking the entire country said ‘well we’re going to completely change our gun laws’, and they did. And it hasn’t happened since.”


It hadn't happened before either (and the whole event stinks, which is another story).

 

[Lapham3]

I've somewhat observed the 'gun control debate' since working at a sporting goods/hardware store selling firearms in 1968. This issue seems to have come about as reaction to both JFK starting the thought and then those well known 1968 political assasinations and later 1970's attempts adding more fuel. I think the 1968 gun control act was a quickly enacted reaction and put this issue to the minds of folks ever since. It seems to me that control 'feels good' to those folks that have no life experience with the use of firearms for any purpose and genuinely fear them. It also seems to be a galvanizing issue for those whose main goal really is 'people control'. (=and 'even if it maybe won't help much, we HAVE to do something')To me, fairly continuous and purposeful misinformation by the press opened my eyes to an what we might call an 'activist media' and pretty much discredited much of it in my eyes ever since. Too bad that 'good numbers' and facts are so often twisted and honest debate evolves into the namecalling.

 

[DoiInthanon]

I am healthy and fit. I am innately aware of my surroundings and alert by nature. I project confidence and, am sure, rate low on the 'target' algorithm in most criminal minds. However, I am 68 years old and no match for young thugs or groups of thugs. So I am proficient with weapons and licensed to conceal carry.

Who here is qualified to determine my right to self defense? Make your decisions about your life. Mind your own business when it comes to others.

If I am to die violently, I am going down fighting. To die with your hands in the air, on your knees, or shot in the back is a personal decision. You make yours and I'll make mine. I'll respect your decision because quite frankly, I don't give a [censored] how others live their lives.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: DoiInthanon
Who here is qualified to determine my right to self defense? Make your decisions about your life. Mind your own business when it comes to others.

If I am to die violently, I am going down fighting. To die with your hands in the air, on your knees, or shot in the back is a personal decision. You make yours and I'll make mine. I'll respect your decision because quite frankly, I don't give a [censored
how others live their lives.

Couldn't agree more. I will be turning 70 next month. And honestly the gungrabbers really don't threaten me. I will never stop carrying mine nor will I give it up in a house to house search.

But realistically that won't happen. The government can't buy enough body bags for gun collectors that would search a home for guns.

 

[dnewton3]

This debate I started is about one thing to me: Hypocrisy.

And I have a perfect example ...
Mark Barton.

Many remember him for killing many people at a firm in GA several years ago. He walked in a shot many, killing several and wounding more. There was a large, public outcry for stricter gun control.

But that same man, on that same day, hours prior to shooting up the firm, killed his wife and kids with a hammer. Bludgeoned them to death with a hand tool. In fact, this was his second family; his first wife and mother-in-law were killed by the same means, and he was the suspect, but never convicted.


So why the outcry for shooting folks, calling for weapons control, but not a freakin' peep when he bludgeons people to death? It's the fault of the gun at the firm, but not the fault of the hammer? No one even burps an utterance of complaint about the savage beatings, as if the tools were at fault?


Only one explanation; a combination of bias and hypocrisy.