PDA

View Full Version : Suicide and Guns.


nicki
08-25-2011, 6:11 AM
A few years back Time Magazine did an issue where they listed every person killed with a gun in the country and their story.

One thing that was glaring to me was that half of the people killed with guns were suicides.

Of the people who committed suicide, about half of them looked old and their were comments that the person who committed suicide had medical problems.

So, what this post is about is the "Suicide Solution.

Our opponents try to use "suicides with guns" to sway the public with creative use of numbers. Their argument is your gun will kill you.

This got me thinking, how many of these suicides are people with emotional problems versus people who have "terminal diseases".

What if we seriously dealth with the "suicide issue" in this country in an intelligent manner, what would happen to the anti gunners "numbers"?

What if sucides were broken down by reason. For example.

1. Person had terminal uintreatable medical condition. A few people who own guns might think that they would rather die at home rather than waste away in a medical facility.

Few people would falut someone for suicide if they had a terminal illness and they wanted to "Check out".

2. Other suicide. Most people who commit suicide often have emotional/mental issues. That is why so many people pop pills.

Where I am going with this is if the public viewed suicide for medical reasons as a non issue, that means the antis just lost half of their guns and suicide statistics.

What if we worked to create a "suicide license" issued on a "shall issue basis" to individuals with "bad moral character" that had a "Two week" waiting period.

Of course you can't stop someone from committing suicde, but what you can do is contact individual during the 2 week waiting period and help them make arraignments to that when they are gone, their estate is taken care of.

Of course if a person wants to talk to someone, we have time to try to get them some emergency psych help.

The bottom line is we would see a drop in the types of suicides that scare the public.

In fact, with the suicide license, we could provide resources so that people who choose to commit suicide would with means other than guns.

This is a gun rights forum, reducing the number of gun suicide deaths helps us in the court of public opinion when fighting for our gun rights.

I got my flame suit on

Nicki

dominic
08-25-2011, 6:34 AM
Take away guns, suicides will still happen. A determined person can find plenty of ways to commit suicide without using a gun. You wouldn't see a drop in suicides if guns were unavailable, what you would see would be plenty of bungled messy suicides from ineffective poisonings, jumpers, etc. A gun is still the most efficient and "painless" method. Look at Japan, they have a tremendous suicide problem, few if any use a gun, the preferred method there seems to be inhalation using cleaning chemicals in enclosed spaces.

Noxx
08-25-2011, 6:41 AM
OT.

The Shadow
08-25-2011, 6:44 AM
When I've engaged an antigun extremist, and they pull the suicide card to demonstrate why guns should have more restrictive legislation, I like to give examples of the different ways people choose to commit suicide when they don't have a gun readily available to them. For Example, you can google "Half Dome" at Yosemite, and read about people who have chosen to commit suicide by jumping off.

I won't argue that people who really do want to die will find the means to complete their final act, to and including a firearm to do the deed. I find it disingenuous of the antigun zealots to cite guns as if it's the sole method by which people commit suicide and therefore they must be strictly regulated, if not banned outright to reduce suicides. Usually the argument that antigun extremists put out is that if a person who is suicidal didn't have a gun accessible to them, they might have chosen a method of suicide that merely caused them to become unconscious, and they could have been brought back from the brink of death. My response is that's fine for the person who wanted people to think they were committing suicide, but what about the members of the Half Dome diving team who do a swan dive from 600 feet ? The fact of the matter is, our best counter to the antigun zealots claim that guns make suicide easier for the suicidal individual, is to show the numerous ways that people have chosen to end their lives when a firearm wasn't available to them.

SmokinMr2
08-25-2011, 7:01 AM
The "sanctity of human life" types seem to think they know what is best for other people, and they don't seem to like the assisted suicide idea, so I don't imagine a licensed suicide would fare any better...

I have pondered the "what if" scenario (after my mom wasted away from cancer) and in my own thinking I didn't want to be an anti gun statistic.

Someone ready to go isn't going to give you that "2 week wait"...

swilson
08-25-2011, 8:26 AM
I've long suspected that many suicides by gun, including suicide by cop, are added by anti-gun writers to their statistics to make them seem larger. Just like how, and I believe it was John Lott who pointed this out, gang members as old as 25 who died during gang shootouts were classified as children killed by gunfire.

I think a "suicide license" is a very bad idea, especially for our cause. The anti-gun crowd already brands gunowners as lunatics, paraniod, death fetishists, etc... and this would only add to their argument. Plus they already think a LTC is a License to Kill, we don't need them to add a License to Kill Yourself in their headlines.

AJAX22
08-25-2011, 8:29 AM
When I've engaged an antigun extremist, and they pull the suicide card to demonstrate why guns should have more restrictive legislation, I like to give examples of the different ways people choose to commit suicide when they don't have a gun readily available to them. For Example, you can google "Half Dome" at Yosemite, and read about people who have chosen to commit suicide by jumping off.

I won't argue that people who really do want to die will find the means to complete their final act, to and including a firearm to do the deed. I find it disingenuous of the antigun zealots to cite guns as if it's the sole method by which people commit suicide and therefore they must be strictly regulated, if not banned outright to reduce suicides. Usually the argument that antigun extremists put out is that if a person who is suicidal didn't have a gun accessible to them, they might have chosen a method of suicide that merely caused them to become unconscious, and they could have been brought back from the brink of death. My response is that's fine for the person who wanted people to think they were committing suicide, but what about the members of the Half Dome diving team who do a swan dive from 600 feet ? The fact of the matter is, our best counter to the antigun zealots claim that guns make suicide easier for the suicidal individual, is to show the numerous ways that people have chosen to end their lives when a firearm wasn't available to them.

The easy counter argument is to point at japan.... no guns... Beaucup suicides...

gatesbox
08-25-2011, 8:30 AM
If antis really cared about the real statistics they would not allow bicycles in the home either....the number of deaths are nearly identical, especially for accidental deaths by children under 18...

RedFord150
08-25-2011, 8:35 AM
...What if we worked to create a "suicide license" issued on a "shall issue basis" ...In fact, with the suicide license, we could provide resources so that people who choose to commit suicide would with means other than guns...

I believe Dr. Jack Kervorkian already tried to work towards this end. It got him some years in prison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kevorkian

They treated Dr. K as a 'Nut case' in the media. Gun owners are already treated just as badly, do we really want to make it worse?

triplestack3
08-25-2011, 8:55 AM
Someone who wants to go is going to go. Of all the people that I know who killed themselves, only one was by firearm.

Sanctity of life v. Quality of life as two opposed values is a can of worms that should not be opened in regards to 2A. Without choosing to take sides on this, there is more than one way to skin a cat. There are hundreds of ways to off yourself without the use of a firearm and individuals will continue to use whatever means they have at their disposal. Are we going to try reducing the number of suicides by banning bathtubs, razors, carbon monoxide emitting automobiles, and sleeping pills?

dantodd
08-25-2011, 9:16 AM
They treated Dr. K as a 'Nut case' in the media. Gun owners are already treated just as badly, do we really want to make it worse?

I lived in Detroit for part of this whole story and I can assure you that Dr. k was not exclusively treated as a nut case by the media. The right to life means little if the "right" to the alternative doesn't exist.

Eta: I just looked up the dates and his antics started after I left, but most of my family was and is still in the area. He wasnt universally treated ad a nut case.

Stonewalker
08-25-2011, 9:51 AM
Nicki I think you and I agree on more than a few things. I've arrived at the conclusion that death is really not that bad for society. In fact people sort of need to die. People are always going to die. All these government agencies that "save lives" through legislation or ad campaigns (anti-smoking, sun screen, seatbelt, etc etc etc)... why do they do this? People are going to die no matter what.

It's as if they've built a false morality around "not dieing". We worship ourselves I suppose, and perhaps that is why we have this moral system. If somebody wants to off themselves then they should be able to.

Mikeb
08-25-2011, 10:23 AM
Nicki I think you and I agree on more than a few things. I've arrived at the conclusion that death is really not that bad for society. In fact people sort of need to die. People are always going to die. All these government agencies that "save lives" through legislation or ad campaigns (anti-smoking, sun screen, seatbelt, etc etc etc)... why do they do this? People are going to die no matter what.

It's as if they've built a false morality around "not dieing". We worship ourselves I suppose, and perhaps that is why we have this moral system. If somebody wants to off themselves then they should be able to.

Thanks for saying something that echos deeply with me. We will none of us get out of this life alive. Some folk die from accidents some from crime, some from sudden suicide and some from life long suicide.
Freedom of choice?
Mike

triplestack3
08-25-2011, 10:37 AM
Freedom of choice perhaps, but is it always good choice?

That being said, I am sure that all of us at some point have made poor choices. The unfortunate nature of suicide is that is has lifelong ramifications for not only the individual perpetrating the act, but also upon friends, family, and others.

On a corollary note, does anyone know what percentage of suicides are committed while under the use of drugs and/or alcohol? While also referring to such usage as an end, I am also referring to to usage being the means to such an end.

If that's far too far, then I think it would be safe to say that nearly all people who commit suicide by carbon monoxide inhalation own cars. By the same logical fallacy, your car will kill you.

CalBear
08-25-2011, 10:38 AM
Guns and suicide statistics are very deceiving. It's true that folks with a gun in the home were more likely to commit suicide with it. What's also true is people without a gun in the home were basically just as likely to kill themselves, except with other things like knives and ODs.

It's really a silly game. It's like saying someone who owns a blue shirt is more likely to kill themselves in a blue shirt than someone who doesn't.

dantodd
08-25-2011, 10:49 AM
Freedom of choice perhaps, but is it always good choice?

If one is prohibited from making "bad decisions" do they have any true freedom?

Stonewalker
08-25-2011, 10:58 AM
If one is prohibited from making "bad decisions" do they have any true freedom?

Exactly.

I want to address the false morality I was talking about in my other post as well. Something sparked in me when I was listening to an NPR bit about the corpse-pictures that must be put on cigarettes now. They had proponents of the legislation on there. One of the proponents said "For ever two people we get to stop smoking because of these images, we save a life"

...Think about that. First off, what the hell does it even mean? I mean in any qualifiable manner? What does that mean? Second off, (this is what clicked in me on that day) why does "the government" think it's their job to "save lives" anyways? I mean save us from our own decisions. How dare they try to build a moral system that punishes people for making life decisions. If the community (us, the people) wanted to build such a moral system, then by all means go for it. That's what people do. But government? It's an Artificial Morality Construct, built by bureaucrats.

Again, death happens. People are going to smoke even though it kills them, and they are going to enjoy it. And THEY SHOULDN'T"T BE MADE TO FEEL GUILTY FOR IT. You know, I bet for all the thousands of years that people smoked they were able to do so and enjoy it without any moral conflicts. Our government shouldn't be in the business of shaming it's people for their decisions.

POLICESTATE
08-25-2011, 11:07 AM
Suicide by firearm isn't the best way to go IMO, sure it sounds pretty easy and effective, but it's also easy to botch. And then you go through life half-lobotomized, or drinking your meals through a straw, or all manner of issues.

And you can bet you will not get a second chance to off yourself again.

There are much more effective, botch-proof methods of suicide that don't require expensive items (guns) to employ.

For instance, one could always put some rocks in their pockets and jump into a lake, or jump off a bridge. Cost: $0

Or equally effective but more elaborate: 30 feet of rope, tied around one's ankles; 25 feet of thick (not too thick) steel wire, tied around one's neck; some super glue. Cost? I don't know, not much, anyway, one simply ties the rope and wire to some other stout object on a bridge or something that is at least 37 feet off the ground, super glue their hands to the sides of their heads and once the glue is dry after a few minutes jumps.

Far better for a gun owner to sell their guns and give the money to their family, than off themselves with a gun and just get all the guns seized.

Eh whatever. It's a free country right??

triplestack3
08-25-2011, 11:15 AM
If one is prohibited from making "bad decisions" do they have any true freedom?

Where did I say anything about prohibition?
The OP was calling into question the methodology used to perpetrate an act whereas I argued that a good rebuttal would be that the motivations to perpetrate said act negate the statistical data presented to question the mentioned methodology.

*EDIT: See post #10. I am not trying to argue the sanctity of life v. quality of life.

Suvorov
08-25-2011, 12:02 PM
Given the fact that countries with the highest suicide rates have very strict gun control compared to the US (Japan in fact having a defacto ban on any civilian ownership of guns of any type), I'd say this is pretty much a red herring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

stix213
08-25-2011, 1:32 PM
Having a gun in the home no more increases my risk of suicide, than driving over the Golden Gate bridge everyday does. True, with a gun in the home you have a push button convenient way to kill yourself, which is also true for driving over the GG bridge (I could any day stop my car, get out, and jump - I could even do it before reaching the toll booth making it both convenient and free), but having a gun and driving on a bridge don't make you want to kill yourself anymore than you already wanted to.

If so, we should ban bridges first, since bridges aren't in the bill of rights.

blakdawg
08-25-2011, 1:57 PM
I think the OP's point - that (most) suicides should not be included in category of "deaths which could be prevented with stricter gun control" is a good one.

However, I think it's a mistake to spend a lot of time chasing that distraction, because most of the people who raise the issue aren't really motivated by reducing suicides, they're motivated by reducing or eliminating ordinary citizens' RKBA.

If my wife wants me to go to the mall with her, and I don't want to go to the mall, I might think of any number of objections that allow me to appear to cooperate with her without actually doing so - e.g., "well, I would love to go to the mall, but gas is so expensive" or "it's raining" or "the mall is too crowded" or "I was going to mow the lawn this afternoon" or whatever. The theory is that it's easier on both of us if we can avoid the actual conflict (she wants me to go to the mall, I don't want to go to the mall) and blame external circumstances for her disappointment.

After a few weeks, though, she's likely to notice that I've always got a bunch of reasons why I can't go to the mall, even if last week's excuses have all been addressed.

Eventually, she'll figure out that I don't want to go to the mall.

We've got the same situation with citizen RKBA - anti-gun people don't want you and me to have guns. They don't want us to have long guns, shot guns, hand guns, antique guns, competition guns, sporting guns, defense guns, ammunition, shooting ranges, LTC's, or anything else.

They are smart enough to know that if they just come out and say that (especially after Heller & McDonald) most people will write them off as unreasonable zealots.

So they don't say that, any more - they have a laundry list of excuses and conditions and obstacles they put in front of the RKBA, in the hopes that we (as a society) won't see what's happening, or that the people who do see what's happening will give in to disgust and disappointment and defeat and walk away.

Suicide by gun is just one excuse on their list. We could spend millions or billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of hours addressing it - and they'll just drop it and move on to their next excuse, because they don't really care about suicide (or any of their other excuses), they just don't think people ought to own & use guns.

Also, it's a good wedge issue to use with conservatives - there are a lot of strongly religious people who are opposed to anything approaching euthanasia or assisted suicide, and if we let the anti's get the RKBA issue connected to the assisted suicide issue, then they'll try to turn us into the "pro-death" agenda and try to steal away the voters whose religious beliefs are a bigger motivator than the 2A.

Me, I'm pro-abortion rights, pro-assisted suicide, and pro-gun, so I guess I really am part of the pro-death lobby, except that I'd never call it that because it's an awful name/PR position, and that's not my goal or my motivation, so I think it's mostly a distraction.

(And, for what it's worth, my wife dislikes the mall almost as much as I do, that scenario is essentially fictional.)

nicki
08-25-2011, 3:29 PM
The "2week" sucide license is unenforceable, but since many suicides or attempted suicides are "subconscious" cries for help, the 2 week period give society 2 weeks to contact this person and try to help them.

Many suicidal people have "emotional issues".

The Mental Health system in our country is broken and because it is broken, there is "collateral damage". Attacks on our gun rights are part of that "collateral damage".

If we seize the issue, we could potentially take away the argument that the anti gunners use that more gun owners die from their own guns than are saved.

It is not a logical argument, it is an emotional argument that they use to scare the non gun owning public about guns.

We take the "High Road", we show compassion for "sick and dying" people, we show "compassion for people with mental health issues".

This will make us look "human" and our opponents looking like "***holes".

Suicides do devastate people around the person who commits suicide and if we step up, we should see a reduction of suicides.

The other side uses "suicide numbers" as propaganda to attack our rights.

Yeah, other countries with Gun Bans having higher suicide rates, but that argument falls flat with many people.

Now, if we acknowledge that "suicide" is a problem and we are working to implement solutions to try to reduce suicides, then our public relations is we are engaging on trying to fix the problems.

Our opponents are "Opportunists" who look to exploit "Tragedies" not only on "sucides", but other issues as well.

Nicki

triplestack3
08-25-2011, 3:49 PM
I agree with much of what you're saying, although arguing sanctity of life from a pro-2a standpoint seems a bit like juggling hand grenades.
There are also many potential moral pitfalls when embracing quality of life values, especially from a standpoint that can be definitively identified as pro-2a.

EDIT: I suppose the best way to counter that kind of emotional-based attack and to show compassion and identify as Pro-2A is to donate money to various mental health programs and organizations as a Pro-2A group or fund.

mag360
08-25-2011, 3:49 PM
this serves as a good reminder to counter "gun death #'s" arguments by asking well how many were suicides.

The Shadow
08-25-2011, 4:17 PM
The easy counter argument is to point at japan.... no guns... Beaucup suicides...

That's true, but pointing at alternatives closer to home takes the argument away that it's Japan, not the US.

Turbinator
08-27-2011, 7:59 AM
Why don't we treat the causes of suicide first, rather than the chosen vehicle for suicide?

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/15/study-us-suicide-rate-rises-falls-with-economy/

Turby