From what I understand rhyming slang relies on growing up in the place where the slang is used, so you acquired all the set-phrases in that particular area. American’s aren’t really privy to all the place-names or commonly used noun-phrases that the Brits naturally have in their vocabulary.
I’m going to give you more info so you can know where I’m coming from. I have almost every type of gun owner in my extended family. One has multiple documented issues that should have kept her from being allowed to own any gun at all; not only does she own several, she somehow has managed to get a CC license as well. This is a very dangerous situation. On the other hand, most family members have guns for hunting purposes. I grew up eating game on a regular basis: hunting + fishing really is a good way to feed a family when the sole breadwinner is a physical laborer (with the pay to match). Then there are those who work on large ranches in the West and keep a gun on themselves at all times when out on the range for safety reasons, from animals most of all. They do not carry those guns on them when they drive into town and walk into a grocery store, however. A few enjoy skeet and other types of target shooting. Three have killed themselves with their guns. A few are Tea Party-types who just want to stick to all those Socialists who’ve taken over our country. Their ownership is based on fear and ignorance, and in a real emergency (which is almost certain to NEVER happen in their presence) they do not have the kind of professional training which would make having an extra gun on the scene anything but a liability to everyone. They show no particular attention to the responsibilities of citizenship in general…just their RIGHTS. And then some have, in fact, had proper training and in an emergency I would trust them without question to make good choices. Meanwhile, I live on the south side of Chicago and the only danger to myself at the level where I would be justified shooting in defense has always been behind closed doors by family members or sexual partners. If I can say that, why are millions of people living in suburbs so convinced that they must have a loaded gun in their bedside table just in case a burglar surprises them in the middle of the night?
Right now, students have to take U.S. history (and pass a federal test on the subject) to graduate from high school. In many states they have to take driver’s ed (at least the classroom portion). They have to take some form of “Health” (which is supposed to include sex ed). I think that a course in gun safety and use, and a course in adult life skills (balancing a checkbook, comparing interest rates on credit cards, knowing how to change a tire AND a diaper, etc.) should be added to the requirements for graduation.
I’m not against people owning guns, it’s just that I’ve seen how dangerous it is when they own them in ignorance.
I agree there is no straight line between gun ownership rates and violent crime rates (Scotland’s high rate of assault probably doesn’t result from the high rate of fist ownership), but the whole “People would use other weapons instead” argument doesn’t exactly work either. People in the US just plain murder each other a lot more than people in other OECD countries (except the one where they kill each other way more. But right now ‘we’re better than Mexico’ is a not a claim to fame.)
I think you should probably accept that you don’t understand suicide at all and stop making pronouncements about it. Most people who are planning to kill themselves in a depression-suicide (as opposed to a death-with-dignity suicide) will not kill themselves if they are prevented from doing so for half an hour. People commit suicide because they want to die right now. Suicides are among some of the most preventable deaths. You are imagining how hard it would be to stop you if you decided your were really going to kill yourself, but given that you aren’t planning on killing yourself, you don’t really understand the frame of mind you would be in if you were planning on killing yourself.
I don’t know if anyone here is. Unfortunately anyone who says that guns are dangerous is usually assumed to mean that we ought to have laws outright banning them even though other countries that have much better records when it comes to gun violence don’t have such laws.
Well, my proposed “ban” would be just an irritant, since you could sell the same objects, just not label or market them as holsters. The point of the law would be to add a small bit of friction to the purchase of such objects:
a chance for someone to say, “Hmm… why is this not a gun holster?”
and to maybe arrive at the conclusion that it’s because it’s not safe
a chance that someone wouldn’t buy one because they aren’t in the
same place as the other gun holsters in the store
a chance that a manufacturer would stop making them because its too
irritating to deal with the stupid regulation and because of the point above
I’m pretty sure that often the most effective public policy is often just to make the thing you don’t want people to do a little more annoying to do.
My understanding is that in Brazil there are areas where you basically leave the nation and enter a sort of gang controlled other country. While a friend of mine was teaching in Sao Paulo there was a day when a police helicopter was shot down by a rocket. Normally we wouldn’t bother comparing shooting stats from war zones, and I get the impression that some parts of Brazil are basically war zones.
I agree that lawyers tend to try to find reasons for everything so that blame can be affixed and damages can be requested.
However, accidents are another thing. There is a whole sceince of safety and tools (like fault tree analysis and failure mode and effects analysis) that seeks to reduce the number of accidents by eliminating or reducing the causes of accidents. Now you and I and society may have a different opinion of the value of accident reduction (save this poor woman’s life) vs the cost of accident reduction (“guns are just plain fun”, “I need guns for protection”) but some accidents just have too high a price.
Somebody died – that is a tragedy, and she died tragically, and left behind a family. That is sadd.
However – she shot herself in the face with a gun in a bra-holster.
Aaaaaannd, for that reason, I’m reacting in much the way I would if an animator was crushed by a falling piano, or Mel Brooks fell into an open sewer and died.
Separately add up the value of gun ownership, dog ownership, whiskey ownership and car ownership, (fun, companionship, protection, mobility, relaxation and for each subtract the cost of gun ownership, dog ownership, whiskey ownership and car ownership ($, probability of death, probability of injury, greenhouse gas emissions, other emissions), then decide which you want more of or less of.
Gun deaths aren’t any worse or better than the other deaths, @Skeptic doesn’t have to care about every death equally to make a valid point, it just seems that some of the gun deaths might be low hanging fruit from the standpoint of some simple changes to reduce them. “Less” bang for the (smallest) buck so to speak.
I’ll admit I am not an expert on suicide, but it seems to me that people who shoot themselves fall under two camps:
People who already had a gun for what ever reason, possibly for decades.
People who bought one with he intent of shooting themselves.
So what law can we pass to prevent suicides? In the case of scenario 1 I don’t see any law will help. It was acquired years ago, probably before the person stared to have problems.
In the case of 2, again, assuming they were law abiding up to this point, any system of checks will come up clean and there will be no reason to deny them. I guess one could argue a waiting period might help, but perhaps it does nothing more than just delay it. I guess we could start and look at the data and see if something like a waiting period that is in some state affects their suicide rate or not. I am going to go out on a limb and say “no”, or at least not a significant amount.
It is possible that that a lack of funding and constrictions put on the ATF and any other agency that wants to control or just measure gun safety may contribute to a perceived boobishness.
I am all for education and safety. Though it can be done with out official classes. In my mind, following the rules in the manual and at the range will keep you out of trouble for people who just want one around and shoot it a few time a year. People who CCW or hunt, using them “in the wild” so to speak, have to go through a basic course in most states. But every range I have been too offers courses for those who want to learn more.
For your less than safe relatives, I imagine it isn’t for lack of knowing the rules, its the lack of caring to use them.
Every single day I encounter people who supposedly took classes and passed tests to be licensed to drive and yet either lack the skills needed to do so correctly or just don’t care.
Well, there aren’t going to be enough data points and there are too many factors we can’t control for - California has a waiting period and a relatively low suicide rate, but it would be totally irrational to compare that to Alaska which has no such restriction and a high suicide rate. I wouldn’t even be surprised if some gun control laws paradoxically increase the danger of suicide by increasing the stigma around mental illness.
Fewer guns around would mean fewer suicides, that doesn’t mean that any particular law would be effective towards that end, and it doesn’t mean that fewer suicides is our top policy objective when creating laws. America doesn’t have an alarming suicide rate the way it has an alarming murder rate.
I took issue with your claim that suicides are among the least preventable deaths. Sure, if there is someone out there with an iron will who is resolute and not at all ambivalent about dying then no one is really going to be able to stop them, but that’s not what an actual suicidal person looks like.
It should also be pointed out that the NRA and the politicians they bribe have made it impossible for the government to collect data on gun related deaths and gun crime. Not that they would believe what the scientists found anyway.
Whenever I see a story about deadly, unfortunate gun accidents (which seems to be almost daily), I wonder what the debate was like back in the 90’s (the 1790’s) around the 2nd amendment?
Among other reasons, the 2nd amendment would allow people the “defense of themselves and the state”. OK, that is understandable, especially early in the nation’s life time.
But, didn’t anyone foresee even the most basic unintended consequences? None at all? I can understand that they may not have anticipated laser sighted fully automatic 600 round per minute Uzi’s. But still couldn’t anyone imagine that kids were going to regularly get hold of their parents firearms and slaughter them, or someone’s “bra holster” was going to fire off in an unfortunate direction? Surely there were stupid gun accidents in the 1700’s too.
[quote=“anon50609448, post:184, topic:52145”]
Well, there aren’t going to be enough data points and there are too many factors we can’t control for - California has a waiting period and a relatively low suicide rate, but it would be totally irrational to compare that to Alaska which has no such restriction and a high suicide rate. [/quote]
Yes - absolutely. There are many factors to consider. California may be a happier place to live, more sunlight per day average, and/or better mental health care options. I doubt you can find numbers that conclusively show how it would help.
[quote=“anon50609448, post:184, topic:52145”]
I wouldn’t even be surprised if some gun control laws paradoxically increase the danger of suicide by increasing the stigma around mental illness.[/quote]
I honestly feel the same way and it is why if we have some sort of mental health check tied to gun ownership we need to proceed with great caution. I see people resisting getting the help they need. From a personal perspective, I got hit pretty damn hard with depression a few years ago. I did go to a psychiatrist who helped. I was never suicidal in anyway. The only hobby I really did was occasionally go out an shoot because it was something I could do cheaply and it made me “happy”. If there was some law where if you are diagnosed as depressed you have to turn in your gun, I never would have gone to get help.
I do believe for severe cases they do flag you as part of the NICS check. Like danger to yourself and others sort of flag. Someone who is that bad should probably be in a facility for help in my eyes.
Well I think you are right they are preventable. I should say I don’t think more gun laws will aid in that prevention. (Aside from a complete ban, which I obviously don’t support)
We had a local beloved weather guy commit suicide a few years ago. I guess he had struggled with depression for years. They local news had some specials on it, and they talked about how it isn’t usually impulsive but planned. Furthermore, it often times doesn’t happen at their lowest of lows. Ironically when they are that down they don’t have the will to do anything. But when they are feeling better they actually have the will to end it, preventing them from ever getting that low again.
