I think he made a pretty reasonable request of you. You’re deliberately trying to be as offensive as possible, and it wouldn’t kill you to act like a human being.
For what it’s worth, I don’t really care much about preventing suicides either. Guns are an effective way to do it, but so are trains and three story parking garages. It’s a much less effective gun control argument than the violent crime angle is, where guns make it much easier to kill or rob someone who DOESN’T want to die.
Erm, your ability to drive IS legally restricted. You can’t legally drive until you have proven to be competent at safely operating a vehicle. If you want to apply the same standards to gun ownership, then we’re agreed!
Pull my finger! 
(sorry…thread needed some levity I think)
I’m going to repost what skald said for those folks who may not be reading the entire thread.
This isn’t a nice warm fuzzy thread with a happy ending. Skald jumped into the thread with this post simply to request that I use a more politically correct term for those folks ( thats the way I read it anyways)
He might be right depending on the individual poster’s level of compassion. But for me personally, after going through the aftermath of a suicide, the shattered look in my uncle and aunts faces, hearing the explanation of why my cousin could not be buried in a catholic burial ground and had to be cremated , changed the way that I see some things.
Mayhap I will show some compassion again in a few years ,but not now.
Declan
Welcome to “Great” Debates.
It’s the luck of the draw, really. The first four or five responses set the tone for the rest of the debate. Sometimes you get lucky and sometimes you don’t.
Right, though, both in actual fact and for one of Sam Stone’s philosophy, a huge part of the reason is that you might not only kill yourself, but also endanger others.
Fuck “politically correct”. Some terms are hurtful. Period.
If I called you a pedophile and you took exception to it would you accept my claim that you were just being too politically correct?
I didn’t call you on it (and I did notice and it bugged me) because unfortunately I have experienced this and figured it wasn’t worth getting my panties in a twist over since I know this sort of thing screws with people in weird ways.
But if someone tells you that clearly pejorative word (in this context) bugs them then keep it to yourself.
FWIW, that’s exactly my perception of this thread too. I think you just happened to pick a topic where people tend to assume you already occupy a deeply-entrenched position.
I’ve had trouble with this in GD before myself. Folks, sometimes the person starting a debate is hoping that the process of debate will help them resolve a dilemma in which they are currently undecided. “I don’t know about all of this - what do you guys think?” is a valid mode of debate/discussion.
If that is the case then the OP should try to clarify their question and/or pull it back on track. If posters persist in veering off course then no point in fighting it and then consider a more narrowly construed question.
And yeah…I have used GD to help me resolve dilemmas I have not been able to sort on my own. Indeed this is a perfect place for that. You do not have to stake out a position of your own to start a debate here.
From experience of the way things work here, I would agree. Unless the OP is a long-time lurker, this course might not have been obvious to him, though.
Ossity, I’m having a hard time figuring out what you want to debate. From what I can tell, all you want is for people to “care” that guns facilitate suicide.
For the record, yes, I do care, I suppose. The same way I care when someone dies while crossing the street or sticking their face in a fan. How that “care” might translate into action, I’m not so clear on.
Are you proposing that people do anything about it? Or just that they “care”?
I’ll admit to being disappointed, though I knew it could happen. “But not to me!” :smack:
See everyone in the funny pages.
Can this thread be closed? I regret opening it.
That is entirely individual. I would find it much more difficult to insert a gun in my mouth and pull the trigger as an impulsive gesture than I would to leap from a height. I met a middle-aged man who shot himself in this fashion once, too, by the way. He blew off large chunks of his face, had lots of reconstructive surgery, and is probably still walking around today, just a lot uglier than he was before. (User tip: use as large a calibre as you can lay hands on for the desired result.)
As Don’t Call Me Shirley mentioned above I too am having a hard time sorting out what you want debated/discussed in this thread.
It’s a pretty good bunch around here generally so if you clarify your OP people will mostly likely try to adhere to what you are after (although threads do have a natural drift in them).
I thought it was pretty straightforward - correct me if I’m wrong, ossity, but I understood the topics on the table for discussion/debate to be:
-Do guns really facilitate suicide?
-If so, should we care?
-If so, what action, if any, can and/or should we take?
To my mind, what makes me ambivalent about widespread gun ownership is this - the fact that a gun can very easily translate a momentary impulse into deadly and permanent results, where just a few moments of reflection or cooling-off would have prevented anything from happening.
There were definitely moments, confrontations, when I was a teen where having a gun in my hand at that moment would have led to suicide or murder - drunk, testosterone fueled moments of stupidity, maudlin dispair and/or viciousness.
To me, that’s the issue. Sure, a person determined to commit suicide or murder will not be deterred by the absence of a gun - there are always other methods. It is simply that a gun makes it very easy to translate those momentary impulses into action. What may have been a drunk fist-fight or just a shouting match (quickly forgotten the next day) becomes a murder. What may have been a bad night sucking down booze and staring at a blank wall (quickly forgotten) becomes a suicide.
Not saying that this justifies legal restrictions on gun ownership, but it sure is something worth considering.
Exactly, though with the caveat that “we” doesn’t necessarily mean “we as a culture” or “we as a government.” It might just mean “we as individuals,” “we as parents,” “we as gun-owners,” or “we as non-gun-owners.”
My mother commited suicide by gun in 1980.
This was after a year long slide into manic depression and anxiety attacks. She was medicated, seeing therapists. She attempted to jump out of the car while we were all together (I was 14-15 yrs old). Rather scary for us kids.
She finally managed to get ahold of a .22 cal single shot rifle that was locked in the attic, used her big toe to pull the trigger.
It never occured to me to blame the gun. The thing that seemed broke was my mom. (That last year, she was not the same person as the one I grew up with…)
Seems to be the same question as always.
Does the undoubted fact that a (very small) minority cannot be trusted with the responsibilities of adult life means that we should take steps to deny those responsibilities to everyone? The article in the OP states rather clearly that those who suicide via firearms are less likely to present with risk factors like alcohol or bipolar disorder. So we could not address this by trying to prevent the mentally unstable from acquiring guns.
And the great hurdle to overcome in arguing that we should reduce gun ownership so as to reduce suicide is that most people do not believe that they will ever be tempted to commit suicide with their gun. And for the most part they’re right - the article states that less than 1% of suicides are with firearms. But since firearms are effective, gun suicides account for 54% of the successful suicides.
So, do I care? Frankly, not to the extent that I think we should take steps to interfere with gun ownership. My reaction has always been pretty strongly against the notion that the average citizen cannot be trusted with his own freedom, and that large institutions know better. And I am not limiting this to government - I had the thing where my HMO provider asked me (on a form) if I kept any guns in the house. I left the space blank, and when the nurse asked me again, I told her (politely) that it was none of her business.
Sure, some people will always abuse their rights. They will kill themselves (or each other), drink themselves into the poorhouse, whatever. The thing is, this has nothing to do with me. You don’t get to take away my rights until you can show that I have abused them - not that I might sometime in the future.
Even if a lonely old man puts a gun to his head because he can’t see anything to live for.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m pro-right-to-die, by any means necessary. Though I can think of more efficient ways to do it, guns are pretty efficient in most cases (though my BIL had to be unplugged to complete the job).
I’ve never heard of suicide as a serious argument against gun ownership, either. I think we have too many guns and too many interpretations of who’s right it is to bear what and for what reasons. In my opinion it has nothing to do with the suicide question. If someone can’t get ahold of a gun to do it, then they’ll find another way. Apples and oranges, really.
Carbon monoxide in the garage is at the top of my “best choice of suicide tool” list. Subject to change upon technological advances, of course.