Unless you live in Florida, take the ammo out first.
2 Likes
Authority in the sense of an expert on the subject, not as in one who wields power.
It’s the latter that is problematic.
3 Likes
In his defense, the lake was an asshole. Who entered the country illegally. AND DROWNED PEOPLE!
If you look at the research on firearm suicide, it is inherently different than other kinds of suicide attempt. It is far more lethal (85% vs. just over 50%), is more likely to be spontaneous (vs. planned) and due to a temporary mental state (i.e. individual off meds). It is the second-leading cause of death of Americans 15 to 34.
Calling it “rational” or a “rounding error” is wrong, and helps block the path towards solutions.
10 Likes
1 Like
I just thought he was bass fishing.
3 Likes
They were invented to kill people, they were designed to kill people, and the statistically largest use of them (other than stockpiling) is for killing people.
Unless a collector is willfully ignorant or in a coma, this fact is not lost on any.
There are animals killed by guns, yes. And there are guns that are designed to kill animals that are eaten.
But that’s not how most of the world gets their meat or uses their guns.
5 Likes
The problem with maps like these is the raw data is great, but you need some analysis.
Based on these maps, would you say the red parts are more dangerous or full of people killing themselves? That is sort of misleading in some cases. Just as an example, Barton County in the middle of Kansas is a red block. with a 14.4 number per 100,000 residents of gun deaths. So how many people actually died? Well, according to wiki, Barton Co. has ~27500 people. So 100,000 / 27,500 = 3.6. So using that we take the 14.4 / 3.6. So if my ciphering is right, 4 people died of guns in that one county. I think it looks like 3 suicides and one accident.
So yes, on paper 14.4 looks horrible. But a handful of gun deaths in sparsely populated areas can really throw off the numbers, but they don’t really reflect what it is like there. I mean Barton county is one of those places where people don’t always lock their doors.
Even closer to home, you have Jackson County, MO, home to the majority of the KC metro area. It too is red with a 6.8 murder rate. But if one looked closer at where this is happening, most of it is in certain areas of Kansas City, MO, IIRC approaching 100 murders this year. But 15, 20 min in one direction or another, still in the metro area, you have very few murders - none in many areas, though they all live in the red county.
So on one hand, you have a point where some rural areas have had episodes of violence and that is reflected in the map. But I don’t think any one would consider them violent areas because you have a small number of deaths in a sparsely populated area.
On the flip side, places with a dense population has a lower murder rate, but more murders per year, some times hundreds in one city.
So if one were to analyze this - where should we apply the focus to do the most good? Which segment would benefit most from say a 30% reduction in deaths? If we were to craft laws, where should we focus those laws?
Here are a few that have been proposed:
- Require gun owners to go through thorough training on safety and use, and proctored testing, prior to ownership. Include education on suicide risk (much like prospective drivers are educated on the perils of driving while intoxicated). Train and allow proctors to recognize behavioral risk factors.
- Sell all firearms with trigger locks. (I can’t find the source right now, but I’ve read at least one analysis that shows that almost any delay or additional step between the impulse towards suicide and the act reduces the likelihood of fatality. Gun safes would be even better, and have the added benefit of reducing theft and accidental firing by kids.)
- Prohibit firearms in the household of those with history of prior suicide attempt, unless cleared by psychiatric professional. Though this might not be as useful as it sounds, since research shows it’s the firearm that correlates to the suicide, not the other way around. (“Firearms and Suicide in the United States: Is Risk Independent of Underlying
Suicidal Behavior?” Miller, Barber, White & Azrael, American Journal of Epidemiology Advance Access published August 23, 2013)
*A key finding of the above study was “the availability of lethal means is associated with risk of death
by suicide above and beyond the baseline risk of suicidal behavior.”
5 Likes
I’ll take a look at your comment later, but this is a pretty good indication of why discussing guns with you is mostly pointless.
Never, not once in the history of deputization has a local sheriff or marshal both armed and deputized a posse? Only ever deputized it, never ever armed?
Oh, here’s a primary source that took all of five seconds to find:
Just as a reminder, you were asking why having more than one gun would make someone scary. I suggested that someone who can arm a bunch of buddies to form up an armed gang is scarier than someone who has to get his buddies to buy their own guns. Your rebuttal is apparently that I’m misusing the word “posse”. I point out that my usage is understandable, so you make a demonstrably false claim that posses are never armed by their leader.
Please tell me: why did you feel the need to make a claim that is not just false but absurd to argue against the notion that someone who can arm a gang is scarier than someone who cannot arm a gang? I mean, it seems like an unobjectionable, trivial observation to me that a guy with bad intentions and a gun is not quite as scary as a guy with bad intentions, five friends, and six guns. But you’re so dead-set on not accepting even this simple observation that you would somehow argue in the face of very easily adduced historical evidence that law enforcement never ever once in the history of the world armed a posse.
I don’t know whether that’s better classified as cognitive dissonance or confirmation bias, but either way it indicates that you have a massive blind spot on this particular issue.
Given that you’re willing to make such absurd claims on tiny side issues, I feel it is just about impossible to have a good faith discussion with you on this subject. Your comment is very lengthy. How many false and absurd claims are in there? How much debunking do I have to do to make even trivial points and observations? Could it ever be worth the effort? Are you even capable of changing your mind on any aspect of this question?
And your refusal to acknowledge how availability of firearms impacts the likelihood and survivability of suicides is nothing short of disgusting.
6 Likes
They do. At least all handguns I’ve seen come with them. And there are free trigger lock programs for free locks. And you can usually write who made your gun for a free one. And they are <$10 at walmart.
ETA
I don’t know how that would work, but I’d be open to something like that. Like a family flag for NICS. But I am not sure how you can restrict someone to their own property if they already owned it. Would this be similar to having someone committed as a danger to themselves?
Well… I was mistaken. Note I never said “never”. For your 5 examples, how many other examples did you find as I described? But kuddos for finding exceptions. Exceptions that involved law enforcement and not crazy guys hording guns passing them out to people, which is what you are worried about.
But hey, let’s circle back to the original comment and the original intent of my reply, as now we are arguing what a posse is.
My point is - you are worrying about things that don’t happen. Even with your research you found law enforcement arming up. Hell technically this is what happens when you join the army, right? You might even manage to find some guy in Michigan who armed his militia or something. But your examples ignore the fact - this is a non issue. It doesn’t happen - or at worst - it almost never happens. It shouldn’t be the cause for fear and additional legislation. By your logic, Trump and his supporters are right we should block immigrants and refugees because they might be terrorists or rapist - and unlike your example - those people actually exist today.
You want want acknowledgment? Ok sure, some one could COULD do that. It is with in the realm of physical possibility. A guy with a bomb on his chest could walking to my kids school tomorrow. That is a possibility too. But I am not losing sleep over shit that never happens.
How about some acknowledgement that your scenario has no bearing in reality?
False and absurd claims? Really?
I’ve acknowledged it. I’m sorry I have to be the asshole to bring reason into an emotional subject. But I didn’t start it. I don’t want anyone to commit suicide. If you magically got rid of guns then a certain percentage would either not attempt suicide or fail at it. There is your acknowledgment.
And I put forth something to do, a registration scheme and system for mental health professionals to require at risk people are disarmed.
I am not a ‘not one inch’ person. There are things that should be done. But what should be done should be minimally impacting the law abiding and maximized to preventing harm, in my opinion.
1 Like
Why? Because guns are a holy right from the Founding Fathers?
2 Likes
No, because people doing no harm, endangering none should not be punished. Licensed, restricted and registered probably, but not prohibited or confiscated without specific cause. And >99% of gun owners are not harming anyone.
I cited the maps to specifically refute the assertion that: [quote=“burllamb, post:94, topic:88448”]
Almost all gun violence is gang and drug related, committed by a very few urban people.
[/quote]
Let’s just fly right past the racial and socio-economic landmines in that statement and stick to the numbers.
For an activity that is entirely dependent on have people present (at least 2, a shooter and a victim), the only statistically rigorous way of analyzing risk is relative to population. If you were randomly teleported to any location in the United States, your objective risk of being involved in a firearm homicide is very well represented in those maps.
Your comparison of Barton and Jackson counties is an example of quickly the topic shifts to the subjective. You cite Barton County as “safe” because, well, rural! And Jackson is unsafe because, city! But the numbers don’t bear that out.
I don’t necessarily think that there are mutually exclusive steps to take to reduce firearm violence in rural and urban areas. Part of the problem we’re facing in the US is that all discussion of solutions get shot down (pun intended) because they might have the end result, regardless of the potential benefit, of reducing the number of guns produced/sold/in circulation/in private hands.
6 Likes
Right, but refuting the argument legitimises its premise – you don’t need to know how to field-strip an AR15 to say whether it belongs on a low shelf at Toys ‘R’ Us. This guy is winning his particular argument in a way that arguably undermines others trying to make the same case.
I can see both sides of this, including why it’s satisfying, but umma reserve my high fives for when someone wins an argument by rising above playground taunts, not just smacking them down.
I see. Yes, I agree with you that you can’t blame it all on gang/drug violence. Though it is a fair point that the worst gun crime, with most deaths, are poor dense areas. As you pointed out, some times the murder rate isn’t as high because there are so many people in the area not hurting anyone too. But VOLUME I think is important when comparing smaller areas. Even in those cities where they do have high murder rates, there are areas with no murders near by. The per capita measure is a good way to compare countries, especially when their populations are vastly different.
But again, the numbers alone don’t tell you that. I guarantee you would feel safer lost in the middle of Burton Co because THERE IS NO ONE AROUND, vs the few square miles where most of the murders in KC, MO occur. Murders per capita in a year only tell part of the story too, as next year maybe no one died of a gun in all of Burton Co, but KC, MO will still have dozens of murders.
Again number don’t lie, they don’t always tell the whole story.
1 Like
Hey, the daily tribute I pay in lack of sleep and sanity I pay to a 5 year old has earned me the solid right to a good “Dad Pun” every now and then…
I believe the correct response is a hearty groan and a deep feeling of embarrassment and shame for having been exposed to said pun.
3 Likes
I agree. I like to combine data and insight, but I find one of the best ways to counter rhetoric like “gun violence is all urban drug dealers” is with evidence.
I definitely get you. I agree that there are definitely lots of safe places in the country. But the most terrified I’ve ever been of an immediate, violent death was when I was in the middle of nowhere, fishing my way up a mountain stream, and stumbled upon a meth lab camp. I just stopped and backed outta there as slowly and quietly as I could.
4 Likes
