Ok, I looked for a recent gun control thing that I could add this to, but it didn’t seem to fit. This was a survey from Australia (which the NRA seems to love to demonise in terms of gun control). The stricter gun control laws were brought in in 1996.
Anyway, one reason that the US’s advocates can’t compare Australia and the US is:
Out of a population of 18 million people. Australia doesn’t have a gun culture and our major problem was (and still is) male suicide. The massacre that sparked the gun control laws was when one person killed 35 people. This represented a significant amount of the homicides commited with guns.
Just trying to clear Australia’s reputation as a big brother state.
Do you have any statistics for male suicide by other means? If people are jumping off bridges, instead of shooting themselves, how is this an improvement.
Many suicides are spur of the moment things. The idea is that if people don’t have access to guns they will resort to methods which are (a) less effective, like pills or wrist-cutting, or (b) require more planning, like finding a tall building or bridge to jump off. In both these cases, attempted suicide is generally less successful than with a gun. In the case of (b), many people lose the impetus and never even attempt suicide.
You did read that part, right? So the problem is not so much with legally owned firearms, as with illegally possessed firearms. And the illegal firearms are already-- well, illegal. So additional legislation helps how? Make it MORE illegal to illegally possess a firearm? Why not just enforce the laws that make the illegal firearm illegal to begin with?
puddleglum said:
There will be no peace in our time until Australia,…nay, The World bans bridges forever. :rolleyes:
That’s the idea? The government’s responsibility is to prevent people who are so inclined from destroying themselves in an easily accessible and convenient manner?
If you accept as your tenet that because an object may be used irresponsibly, that object must be removed from society (or, at the very least, restricted in such a manner as to make it very difficult to use in a harmful way) you’re headed down a road to loss of freedom, and mindless over-legislation. Why manufacture a car that will drive faster than 65 m.p.h.? Why make tobacco products? Why not ban alcohol? Why put an electrical outlet within 10 feet of a bathtub?
Perhaps these objects, in and of themselves, are not evil after all. Perhaps the acts committed with the objects should be illegal. Maybe we should legislate to make it illegal to murder someone with a firearm. Oh, wait.
I agree with TomH. The reason guns are so dangerous is that they make taking life so easy. This applies to suicide just as much as homicide. I don’t believe that there are more people jumping off bridges since Australia have banned private gun ownership because it’s simply much harder to kill yourself that way and most people, once they’ve driven up to the bridge and have had time to think about what they’re about to do would probably have had a change of heart. Similarly I imagine that death by drowning is a lot more unpleasant than by a self inflicted gunshot wound, deprived of a quick death some people would probably reconsider.
Now…I own a lot of guns, and I would NEVER (and “they” say never say NEVER) but I am saying NEVER find it easy to take my life or anybody else’s.
When you get to that point of depression, the point where you would actually lift the barrel of a gun to your head, you are at a level that has nothing to do with how easy it’s gonna be to pull the trigger!!!
Guns are NOT dangerous to humans…the idiots that kill people with them are…Cliche’…I know.
I agree, that’s true but I think that a percentage of people who commit suicide do it in the grip of a depression which would be only temporary. For example, if a stockbroker loses a million dollars in a single day he might think about putting a gun to his head, if he had instant access to a gun he might even do it. However, if he had to travel 5 miles to the nearest bridge or find the nearest tall building and travel all the way to the top of that or go home and get a bottle of pills so that he could end it all or something like that, he would have more time to re-evaluate his situation and perhaps change his mind.
Waitaminute… how do you prove someone is an idiot and couldn’t there me more than one idiot responsible for a shooting? What if you get the wrong idiot?
Would there be a problem with the justice system being prejudiced against idiots of different ethnic or econo-social backgrounds?
What a can of worms here…
I guess until we idiot-proof things banning guns might be a better idea…
OK, this was primarily meant to show that using Australia’s gun control laws in American debates about gun control is not valid. I realised that it would be a debating point which is why I put it in Great Debates.
Suicide is a completely different problem which can only be brought down by education/counseling.
If Australia really wanted to bring down the death rate it has, it will start to ban cars and get a lot more police on the roads. Not that it will, and I think that banning cars is a bad idea.
Jingo, in Sweden I have yet to see any electrical outlets in a bathroom, so there may be a law about that here. But I am not saying there is, just I have never seen one. THings can get a lot worse for you.
And the thing with illegal firearms is that it is another charge to bring against the criminal (no one gets there house searched randomly without good cause) and get a higher sentence. Most people realise that if something is made illegal people will try and get around it or possess it anyway (I keep getting offered fake drivers licences pff the web for instance).
But there has been no additional legislation since 1996, so we were not making illegal firearms more illegal, just stating which firearms are illegal. And less than 10% of homicides were committed by registered gun owners, so that means that it may have been the significant other, or children or friends who used them. I stress the word may.
To some extent, and they might do so in a number of different ways. For example, by installing tall fences along the sides of high bridges to stop people jumping off. Or by requiring medicines to be packaged in a certain way and sold in certain quantities.
Which is the rationale underlying anti-drug legislation. You’d also probably find yourself in some kind of legal trouble if you wanted to keep large quantities of weapons-grade plutonium at home.
I don’t see that the people of Australia or the UK have lost their freedom, or that they are the victims of mindless over-legislation.
jeel,
Sadly, you are very, very wrong: never say “never” indeed. About 10 percent of the population suffer from some kind of mental illness at some stage in their life and a proportion of those people kill themselves as a result. But it couldn’t happen to you, right?
Wrong, wrong, wrong. There is a direct correlation between having access to an efficient means of killing yourself and committing suicide: that’s why doctors, vets (drugs) and farmers (guns) are extremely high-risk groups.
You’re making the mistake of assuming that being clinically depressed is just like being very sad or upset. It’s not. And the impulse that drives people to suicide is not susceptible to reason. Many people are capable of killing themselves with a gun that they have in the house but not of leaving the house and finding a high bridge to jump off.
If lack of access to guns reduces the suicide rate, why does a country like Japan where firearms are rare have such a high suicide rate?
I think that a more likely explanantion of the statistic at the bottom of the article is that 90% of homicides are done with illegal firearms.
Yo, hit me with the full force of that fire hose!
Hit me with that ax?
:hijack:
And just a point of clarification, 90% of the homicides were not committed by the registered owners, this does not mean that the firearms were illegal, just that they were being used by the wrong person. Possibly well over half of these weapons were illegal, but not all of them.
I’m not saying it could not happen to me! I have a clear understanding of what clinical depression is. I have a close relative who is fighting a bout of clinical depression and I know as well as anybody that with the right mix of ingredients anybody could develop this psychological and physiological problem.
But you are saying that clinical depression creates an impulse for suicide not susceptible to reason and then saying that banning guns is going to save someone’s life who has a mental illness strong enough to create this impulse. ??? Enlighten me.
But if there were no guns, their clinical depression would go away after a “cool off” period???
I’m assuming you can see the contradiction here between your first and second posts.
It’s not a question of a “cool off” period. I’ll put it simply: somebody who has easy access to an effective means of killing himself is, other things being equal, more likely to commit suicide than somebody who does not. Firearms are more lethal than other commonly-used methods of suicide, parasuicide and deliberate self-harm. Somebody who has a firearm is more likely to succeed in killing himself than somebody who does not. For example, in Canada firearms are used in 15% of attempted suicides, parasuicides and deliberate self-harm and 60% of successful suicides.
Again, you are making the mistake of assuming that a depressed person conceives a determination to kill himself which he will always carry through. That’s not how it works. And you haven’t even started on other conditions, such as schizophrenia.
This is to prevent someone from ACCIDENTALLY killing themselves. And, in the case of the bridges, to prevent the jumper from injuring or damaging someone or something innocent upon impact. Suicides also cause tremendous traffic jams, attract gawkers, and expend tons of public money (police, fire and rescue, ambulance, hospital, etc.). Callous as it may seem, I believe that putting a tall fence along a bridge or locking the roof access to a building are matters of self-interest.
And what, exactly, is responsible use of weapons-grade plutonium? Weapons of mass-destruction are already illegal, and rightfully so.
they have, indeed.
Besides, I said “headed down the road…” i.e. what about a big knife? A club? Is my skein dhu legal? May I legally defend my home and family with a pike? A sporting javelin? A sharp stick? Keep in mind that one is prohibited from bringing the bagpipes into Parliament on the grounds that the pipes are an instrument of war.
Thank you, and Goodnight
No. Never assume. There is no contradiction…I said I would never find it easy to kill myself or somebody else. Meaning, by any means including with one of my guns. I did not say I would NEVER be depressed!!! Read more carefully. Having clinical depression does not mean it’s easy to kill yourself.
I think we might both agree on one point, after all of this, that is that we should keep guns out of the hands of people with severe depression, schizophrenia, and criminal tendencies. Not all citizens! Like I said, I own a lot of guns, and those guns are not making it easy for anybody to kill anybody right now, yet my right to possess them is in jeopardy.
There is no contradiction…I said I would never find it easy to kill myself or somebody else. Meaning, by any means including with one of my guns. I did not say I would NEVER be depressed!!! Read more carefully. Having clinical depression does not mean it’s easy to kill yourself.