I give up.
If we let them take our guns, they’ll come for our bridges next!
The problem I’d like to see addressed with suicide isn’t how people do it but who does it. I’ve had two friends kill themselves that were smart, funny, amazing people. Whereas assholes like Declan always seem to be soldier on, impervious to the realization that the world would be better off without them.
Good, you should give up, because he’s right.
I’m not sure what this means. I thought I addressed the OP pretty well. Can you elaborate?
12=-iop
Not that I have thought about this too much, but I would check into the local Econo Lodge, pick up the phone and call 911.
Me: “Yes, I’m here in Room 224 of the Econo Lodge on Maple Street. I am going to shoot myself and do not want the maid to have to see the bloody carnage in the morning. Please send the EMT to Room 224 over here at the Econo Lodge on Maple Street.”
Then hang up the phone and blast yourself, leaving 2 forms of picture ID on the nightstand. Then your lovely spouse doesn’t have to live in a home where you committed suicide, nor anyone you care about see your gruesome remains.
I think suicide in most circumstances is an extremely selfish and unnecessary option, but if it had to be done, that would be the way…
I’m not ossity, but the point of the article cited in the OP seemed to be that firearms were much more likely to result in successful suicides, but that only 10% or so of those who were prevented from committing suicide went on to try again. They also argued that firearms suicides were more impulsive, and that the immediate access to guns made a irrevocable outcome that much more likely than with other forms of suicide.
So the article was arguing that it is not necessarily true that “if you prevent one form, they will just try another”. The argument was that, if we could eliminate or reduce the availability of firearms to suicides, then a rash impulse would not be as likely to lead to an irrevocable death.
ossity will correct me if I am wrong, I hope.
Regards,
Shodan
My impression as well.
The issue I have always had with widespread gun ownership has always been the possibility of impulsive actions in the heat of the moment - I pretty well agree that the dedicated suicide or murderer can always find another way.
Guns do not cause suicides or murders - they just make acting on a momentary impulse that much easier.
Whether this is a good enough reason to restrict their availability is of course another debate. It is something ro weigh in the balance, is all.
Thanks for the clarification. While I agree that firearm suicides are impulsive, if they aren’t available, there are other impulsive ways to do it. Booze and pills, crashing the car, and tossing yourself out the window are pretty good choices, too. Would the absence of guns reduce the number? Maybe…but in this country, we’ll never know.
It means ossity provided evidence and you provided unsupported intuition as a straight-faced rebuttal. S/he is “debating” with facts and such and you, and many others, are supposing, though couching those suppositions as irrefutable conclusions. On preview, I see that you are simply restating your “conclusion” despite being alerted to the fact that it is directly contradicted by the only evidence proffered so far. Perhaps you can see how this might be frustrating. Then again, it’s gonna rain on Tuesdays, whether there’s clouds or not.
I give up, too.
Regards,
Shodan
okay, sorry. I skimmed the article because I was doing other stuff. I see that they have some stats. I guess there’s no debate. Guns make it easier to kill yourself impulsively.
Only the good die young dude , have a smoke and chill out.
Declan
To sum up the article:
-
Suicides can be split into two different groups: pre-meditated and impulsive.
-
Impulsive suicides take advantage of methods readily at hand that are far more lethal than other methods, specifically guns and jumping from a height.
-
When something interferes with their attempt, most impulsive suicides do not go through with a further attempt. (
The case the writer used to illustrate is Britain’s coal gas ovens. When heated with coal gas - which has a high percentage of carbon monoxide - half of the 5,000 suicides a year were committed by closing the windows, cranking up the coal gas in the oven and sticking one’s head inside. When Britain changed over to natural gas, with a much lower percentage of carbon monoxide, the suicide rate dropped by 1/3 (approximately 1667 people per year).
- Of the 32,637 suicides committed in 2005, some 17,000 were committed with firearms[statistics here], overwhelmingly chosen by impulsive suicides and avoided by premeditated suicides. If those impulsively considering suicide had no access to firearms, they would most likely (90% or better) make no other attempt to kill themselves.
Taking that into mind, should we, as a nation, consider limited access to firearms?
There’s my summation.
My opinion? While it’s one of the few legitimate reasons I can see for limiting access to firearms, I cannot think of a realistic measurement that could both prevent impulsive suicides from getting their hands of a gun and still preserve our Constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms.
Seventeen thousand a whole lot of people, people whose loss leaves us all diminished. But pragmatically speaking, the 2nd amendment is not going anywhere, and the majority of Americans have no interest in limiting it or getting rid of it.
In the end, I suppose it is a price we are willing to pay for our guns and the freedom to keep them.
Thanks phouka - that’s a much more reasoned position than just shouting it down on the presumption that it’s a wedge argument put forward by someone who wants to snatch all the guns away, but just hasn’t got around to admitting it.
The unexamined life is not worth living. If the basis, existence and worth of those things we consider ‘rights’ cannot even be discussed, those rights are demoted to the status of mere dogma.
No, I don’t care. I don’t stand in the way of people who want to commit suicide.
Couple friends of mine successfully offed themselves. Both used .30-30 rifles. My only objection was that they both did it indoors and left quite a mess.
How about a public education campaign to inform the public of the risks involved in gun ownership and to discourage gun ownership? Possible tag lines: “Just say no - You’ll shoot your eye, and other important stuff, out.” “This is your brain. This your brain on the wall. Any questions?”
There’s precedent for such public health campaigns. I can’t see how it would violate any constitutional rights. And yet, if the government were to engage in a similar campaign discouraging the exercise of first amendment rights (tag line: “Just say nothing,”) I expect we would all be outraged. I personally don’t think much of the idea, but am offering it to point out that the second amendment doesn’t mean that nothing at all can be done in the U.S.
She has said that your scenario would be preferable to viewing me with my brains blown out.
My mother used a gun to kill herself almost 10 years ago (on July 19, which is coming up fast). Her suicide was not impulsive; she planned it weeks ahead of time. The only reason I care that a gun was involved is that someone had to find the body. Someone had to see my mother’s brains and bits of skull and clumps of hair splattered on the wall. Someone has to have that picture in her head for the rest of her life and has to deal with nightmares and random, unpredictable flashbacks, which sometimes cause panic attacks. That someone is me. I was 18.
That said, I don’t know what you can do to keep guns out of the hands of people who might use them to commit suicide. You could check for prior mental health treatment, but my mom never got any help. Even if she had, where do you draw the line? You can have a gun if you have borderline personality disorder or OCD but not if you are bipolar or schizophrenic? If you haven’t had any treatment in the last 10 years? Despite what happened with my mom, I’m pro-gun, so I don’t think outlawing them entirely is a good solution.
That would be a great debate category.
Do I care? Absolutely. Can I affect the outcome? Can’t think how it could be done. If it isn’t a gun then it’s a car driven into a cement wall.
On further thought, my personal comment was uncalled for. I apologize.