A proposal to reduce gun deaths without denying rights or new gun restrictions

[Federalist]

Wow, okay, well, that's great.

I would assume that virtually all laws except those explicitly criminalizing the violation of one's rights would fall under this rationale, right?

Correct. All laws that do not prevent or punish acts that harm other people or their property. Any other initiation of interpersonal violence is not justified, as it is an attack on an innocent party.

A law preventing a five year from buying heroin would be unthinkable under your rationale, or do you have special exceptions for kids?

What parent would let a five year old buy heroin? Seriously.

Labels on liquor, tobacco, food would of course be examples of using government force, so they would have to go, obviously.

Yes mandates for such things would be examples of government force against innocent people.

Stop signs too, that government telling you what to under threat of violence!

Not really. The owner of a roadway certainly has the right to dictate how that roadway is used. Stop signs simply indicate what road users must do when using a road. They are not in any way an initiation of aggression.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

Correct. All laws that do not prevent or punish acts that harm other people or their property. Any other initiation of interpersonal violence is not justified, as it is an attack on an innocent party.



What parent would let a five year old buy heroin? Seriously.



Yes mandates for such things would be examples of government force against innocent people.



Not really. The owner of a roadway certainly has the right to dictate how that roadway is used. Stop signs simply indicate what road users must do when using a road. They are not in any way an initiation of aggression.

I am more concerned with the parents who would send their five year old to buy heroin, which of course could not be prohibited, because, ya know, that would be a threat of violence by the government.

Okay, your views are noted, thanks for playing.

 

[jamesrage]

What restriction was proposed? That's what I was asking...

I oppose making gun store owners preach to customers about suicide.

 

[jamesrage]

Do people have cyanide pills within immediate reach,

I don't know if they are or not.Which is why I suggested supplying them in case they didn't have immediate access.

and would they want to?

If they are determined to kill themselves then I would think they would want the easiest and most fool proof way of killing themselves,

By the way, again, very painful.

I do not know if it is or isn't.If it is then I am sure there is some other poison pill.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

I don't know if they are or not.Which is why I suggested supplying them in case they didn't have immediate

If they are determined to kill themselves then I would think they would want the easiest and most fool proof way of killing themselves,


I do not know if it is or isn't.If it is then I am sure there is some other poison pill.

Look, my point, based on research, is that suicidal impulses are often fleeting. People who have these impulses should avoid having guns, or cyanide capsules, in easy reach, unless of course a person wants to make sure they die the next time they have a suicidal impulse.

All I am suggesting is that people be made aware of this. I am not proposing any method or policy whereby they would be denied the right buy a gun.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

I oppose making gun store owners preach to customers about suicide.

I oppose 20,000 gun suicides every year.

 

[jamesrage]

I oppose 20,000 gun suicides every year.

Your proposal wouldn't do anything except irritate gun owners who don't want to be preached to just because of a tiny statistical insignificant fraction of the population chose a gun instead of sleeping pills, locking themselves in the garage with the car running, jumping from a high building or high bridge,slitting their wrists or some other means.

 

[Jerry]

These tactics actually reduce suicides, not because there is only one bridge or one tall building to jump from, but because if a person chooses that bridge or that tall building and they cannot commit the act there, by the time they would find a better method, the impulse has subsided.

Suicide is not impulsive. Suicide Causes

Those who have decided to end their lives will find any number of ways to carry it out. Removing one method, such as jumping off a tall building, only changes how the suicide is carried out. It does not stop the suicide.

I propose, to curb suicide by gun, or tall buildings for that matter, that we legalize physician-assisted suicide.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

Your proposal wouldn't do anything except irritate gun owners who don't want to be preached to just because of a tiny statistical insignificant fraction of the population chose a gun instead of sleeping pills, locking themselves in the garage with the car running, jumping from a high building or high bridge,slitting their wrists or some other means.

Well James, I could go a thousand ways with this, but let me start here. I would argue that the irritation of gun owners is far more insignificant than the lives of TWENTY THOUSAND Americans EVERY YEAR who commit suicide by gun. Or do you have any support for your assertion that none of these lives would be saved if they had more information?

I'd be interested to know how many lives above 20,000 would warrant the acceptance of irritation by gun owners, in your opinion.

50,000? 500,000? 5,000,000?

What number of lives qualifies for a little irritation for you?

 

[Jerry]

Well James, I could go a thousand ways with this, but let me start here. I would argue that the irritation of gun owners is far more insignificant than the lives of TWENTY THOUSAND Americans EVERY YEAR who commit suicide by gun. Or do you have any support for your assertion that none of these lives would be saved if they had more information?

I'd be interested to know how many lives above 20,000 would warrant the acceptance of irritation by gun owners, in your opinion.

50,000? 500,000? 5,000,000?

What number of lives qualifies for a little irritation for you?

Pure hyperbole.

 

[jamesrage]

Well James, I could go a thousand ways with this, but let me start here. I would argue that the irritation of gun owners is far more insignificant than the lives of TWENTY THOUSAND Americans EVERY YEAR who commit suicide by gun. Or do you have any support for your assertion that none of these lives would be saved if they had more information?

I'd be interested to know how many lives above 20,000 would warrant the acceptance of irritation by gun owners, in your opinion.

50,000? 500,000? 5,000,000?

What number of lives qualifies for a little irritation for you?

What you are proposing would not do anything to deter suicides. Its just a unnecessary hassle for buyers and sellers of guns.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

Suicide is not impulsive. Suicide Causes

Those who have decided to end their lives will find any number of ways to carry it out. Removing one method, such as jumping off a tall building, only changes how the suicide is carried out. It does not stop the suicide.

I propose, to curb suicide by gun, that we legalize physician-assisted suicide.

Nowhere in this article does it argue that suicide is not an impulse.

Suicide is absolutely an impulse, and the greatest contributor to that impulsive experience is depression.

Go look at suicide treatment studies and you will learn that suicidal impulses almost always pass and the sufferer is almost always happy hey did not act on the impulse.

How can you possibly argue with me on this when you obviously have spent zero effort in validating or disputing the impulsive nature of suicidal feelings and actions?

Here, read this, save some NRA members...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suicide-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

What you are proposing would not do anything to deter suicides. Its just a unnecessary hassle for buyers and sellers of guns.

And you make the assertion based on...?

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

Pure hyperbole.

I'd argue that refusing to try and address the 20000 gun suicides every year to avoid a little irritation is the outrageous statement, my response simply reflected the outrage one should expect when they make an outrageous statement.

 

[Jerry]

Nowhere in this article does it argue that suicide is not an impulse.

Suicide is absolutely an impulse, and the greatest contributor to that impulsive experience is depression.

Go look at suicide treatment studies and you will learn that suicidal impulses almost always pass and the sufferer is almost always happy hey did not act on the impulse.

How can you possibly argue with me on this when you obviously have spent zero effort in validating or disputing the impulsive nature of suicidal feelings and actions?

Here, read this, save some NRA members...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suicide-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

From your link:

Yet even mental-health experts have tended to regard these very different types of suicide in much the same way. I was struck by this upon meeting with two doctors who are among the most often-cited experts on suicide — and specifically on suicide by jumping. Both readily acknowledged the high degree of impulsivity associated with that method, but also considered that impulsivity as simply another symptom of mental illness. “Of all the hundreds of jumping suicides I’ve looked at,” one told me, “I’ve yet to come across a case where a mentally healthy person was walking across a bridge one day and just went over the side. It just doesn’t happen. There’s almost always the presence of mental illness somewhere.” It seemed to me there was an element of circular logic here: that the act proved the intent that proved the illness.

So once again the cause of the gun death is mental illness, not access to guns.

'Information' doesn't improve mental illness.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

From your link:


So once again the cause of the gun death is mental illness, not access to guns.

Good Lord, do you have a short term memory disorder?

You just made that argument and few hours ago and I explained for the umpteenth time that I have never, ever said that guns cause suicide.

Beyond that, is that all you got from the entire article? I mean, you quoted it, so must consider it a valid source, so what did you think when the article stated this...

"Beyond sheer lethality, however, what makes gun suicide attempts so resistant to traditional psychological suicide-prevention protocols is the high degree of impulsivity that often accompanies them. In a 1985 study of 30 people who had survived self-inflicted gunshot wounds, more than half reported having had suicidal thoughts for less than 24 hours, and none of the 30 had written suicide notes. This tendency toward impulsivity is especially common among young people — and not only with gun suicides. In a 2001 University of Houston study of 153 survivors of nearly lethal attempts between the ages of 13 and 34, only 13 percent reported having contemplated their act for eight hours or longer. To the contrary, 70 percent set the interval between deciding to kill themselves and acting at less than an hour, including an astonishing 24 percent who pegged the interval at less than five minutes."

And you don't think its worth the simple act of making people aware of this to try and save lives?

I don't know if you are cold, evil, stupid, or just a troll. I'm voting troll.

 

[Jerry]

Good Lord, do you have a short term memory disorder?

You just made that argument and few hours ago and I explained for the umpteenth time that I have never, ever said that guns cause suicide.

Beyond that, is that all you got from the entire article? I mean, you quoted it, so must consider it a valid source, so what did you think when the article stated this...

"Beyond sheer lethality, however, what makes gun suicide attempts so resistant to traditional psychological suicide-prevention protocols is the high degree of impulsivity that often accompanies them. In a 1985 study of 30 people who had survived self-inflicted gunshot wounds, more than half reported having had suicidal thoughts for less than 24 hours, and none of the 30 had written suicide notes. This tendency toward impulsivity is especially common among young people — and not only with gun suicides. In a 2001 University of Houston study of 153 survivors of nearly lethal attempts between the ages of 13 and 34, only 13 percent reported having contemplated their act for eight hours or longer. To the contrary, 70 percent set the interval between deciding to kill themselves and acting at less than an hour, including an astonishing 24 percent who pegged the interval at less than five minutes."

And you don't think its worth the simple act of making people aware of this to try and save lives?

I don't know if you are cold, evil, stupid, or just a troll. I'm voting troll.

Your own source says that impassivity is a symptom of mental illness, that no researcher ever encountered a mentally healthy person who killed themselves on an impulse.

The root cause is, as we see in every instance, mental illness.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

Your own source says that impassivity is a symptom of mental illness, that no researcher ever encountered a mentally healthy person who killed themselves on an impulse.

The root cause is, as we see in every instance, mental illness.

And I completely agree that the root cause is mental illness, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the FACT that suicide is impulsive and that then impulses are short term and if survived, people live on, sometimes to experience more short term periods of suicidal impulses. The difference is HOW. People with guns are five times more likely to kill themselves than people without guns. Do you think people with guns suffer greater instances of mental illness than people without guns? I know people who would make this argument, but it has been disproven by research.

Let me ask you this.

If a person you cared about seemed suicidal, would you remove their guns or their shoelaces (and every other object a person could possibly kill themselves with) and why?

Or would you just walk away and let Darwinian processes take their course?

When I encountered suicidal persons, I took their guns. They indicated to me that they although they had contemplated shooting themselves, the thought of other means never entered their mind. This is of course not true or everyone, in fact nearly 90% of Americans choose methods other than guns to try and commit suicide, but with all other methods combined, the success rate in around 5%, but because he success rate with guns is nearly 90%, guns account for 50% of all suicide deaths. If some of these people had this awareness, just this knowledge, they could make decisions that would save their lives. Those decisions include deciding not to own a gun, or keeping their locked up, or separating the bullets from the gun, or storing the gun in separate location, or doing nothing at all.

The sad thing here is that if you are representative of most gun owners, then gun owners really do not care a whiff about saving a single life, even if they can do so without giving up their liberty in the slightest. But I don't believe you are representative of gun owners, I am a gun owner, and you are clearly nothing like me.

 

[Jerry]

And I completely agree that the root cause is mental illness, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the FACT that suicide is impulsive and that then impulses are short term and if survived, people live on, sometimes to experience more short term periods of suicidal impulses. The difference is HOW. People with guns are five times more likely to kill themselves than people without guns. Do you think people with guns suffer greater instances of mental illness than people without guns? I know people who would make this argument, but it has been disproven by research.

Let me ask you this.

If a person you cared about seemed suicidal, would you remove their guns or their shoelaces (and every other object a person could possibly kill themselves with) and why?

Or would you just walk away and let Darwinian processes take their course?

When I encountered suicidal persons, I took their guns. They indicated to me that they although they had contemplated shooting themselves, the thought of other means never entered their mind. This is of course not true or everyone, in fact nearly 90% of Americans choose methods other than guns to try and commit suicide, but with all other methods combined, the success rate in around 5%, but because he success rate with guns is nearly 90%, guns account for 50% of all suicide deaths. If some of these people had this awareness, just this knowledge, they could make decisions that would save their lives. Those decisions include deciding not to own a gun, or keeping their locked up, or separating the bullets from the gun, or storing the gun in separate location, or doing nothing at all.

The sad thing here is that if you are representative of most gun owners, then gun owners really do not care a whiff about saving a single life, even if they can do so without giving up their liberty in the slightest. But I don't believe you are representative of gun owners, I am a gun owner, and you are clearly nothing like me.

Your own source disputes your argument. You will need to Google another one before a debate can continue.

The cause being mental illness, any proposed solution must address mental illness. Informational pamphlets do not accomplish this.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

Your own source disputes your argument. You will need to Google another one before a debate can continue.

The cause being mental illness, any proposed solution must address mental illness. Informational pamphlets do not accomplish this.

Okay, now you are being nothing but a troll. You have ignored the impulsivity and are simply trying to be annoying.

I don't get mad.

But I do get bored, and you bore me.

 

[Sarcogito]

I think adult suicides should be removed from the gun death statistics when those statistics are used in gun control discussions. If a person wants to kill themself, that is their CHOICE. The right to decide how and when to "check out" should be a fundamental one.

 

[Federalist]

I am more concerned with the parents who would send their five year old to buy heroin, which of course could not be prohibited, because, ya know, that would be a threat of violence by the government.

Yes, now you're catching on. It would indeed be unjustified interpersonal violence against people who have not harmed anyone.

 

[Federalist]

I oppose 20,000 gun suicides every year.

Your goal is to reduce this number, which is a worthy end. But your means is to use interpersonal violence against people who have harmed no one. This is an unjustified use of violence, and your noble end does not justify such means.

Find another way to publicize the danger of suicide, one that does not involve the force of government.

 

[CaptinSarcastic]

Your goal is to reduce this number, which is a worthy end. But your means is to use interpersonal violence against people who have harmed no one. This is an unjustified use of violence, and your noble end does not justify such means.

Find another way to publicize the danger of suicide, one that does not involve the force of government.

Right, because that would make three million laws that involve government force, and that is just one too many.

 

[Federalist]

Right, because that would make three million laws that involve government force, and that is just one too many.

It's actually 3 million too many.

Unless, of course, one feels it is justifiable to initiate interpersonal violence against someone who has not harmed anyone or anyone's property.