Ok, I see what you mean. Your previous post sounded like you were saying that because I thought I was a responsible gun owner, I must not be, so I was a little bit confused and a little bit miffed. But I definitely agree that there are many irresponsible gun owners out there who either think they are responsible gun owners or don’t think about it at all. From some of the disgraceful photos I’ve seen of some idiots posing with their guns, there are definitely people who think that they’re toys, which they are not.
1 Like
Having been suicidal before, I have to step out into the light a little to say that’s bullshit. Homicidal, sure- but that’s not a medical diagnosis, that’s a state of mind. “Mentally unstable in some way” is a catch-all for “I don’t know shit about mental illness.” Psychiatrists and therapists are the first people to say that they are not the people to decide someone is “safe” to own a gun. They’re healthcare providers, not oracles.
If I had a gun in the depths of my struggle with depression- it wouldn’t have been my method of choice. A suicidal person doesn’t need a gun to bring him or herself in range of the intended victim.
Frankly, the only mental illnesses which I know much of anything about are depression and Alzheimer’s, because those are the two that I’ve had to deal with firsthand. I appreciate you posting the article, but that’s one person, and a person who doesn’t seem to understand much about guns, and a person who came out as against guns almost from the start.
Do you believe that a person has the right to his or her own life? I’m kind of curious.
Do you believe I’m going to play ball with your ludicrous leading question?
That’s one expert, in concurrence with many others. Or do you in fact wish to insist that shrinks can predict behavior? I guess it’s my turn to ask leading questions.
Whoa, I didn’t mean anything by that. Sorry.
Pre-existing bias was evidenced right in the Introduction section:
“The public health importance of gun reform in the US is clear and should not need such tragedies for policy change.”
By its own admission, the study was not done for the sake of study but in order to support and promote a socio-political agenda.
From my last will and testament:
“…until you pry them from my cold, dead fingers, which will only be that way because one more printed assault on my gun ownership caused me to finally and vastly prefer death to occupying the same physical plane as even one more nonsensical accusation. I had hoped more for an accusation of illiteracy or drug abuse, or perhaps poverty and its attendant bad grammar. Even male gender + gun ownership correlated with political party membership, although trite, would have been more likely to be true. If you find me here, please give my gun to my bi-racial suburbanite kids. Certainly, with their income and scholastic accomplishments, they will find a good way to mount it in the Beamer. On my tombstone, please have engraved, “So anyway, I was all out of tylenol. Gawd Bless Amuricuh,” and the date.” I give up.
2 Likes
I posted this in a different topic about guns, but here it is again: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/us/to-lower-suicide-rates-new-focus-turns-to-guns.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all
Guns are particularly lethal. Suicidal acts with guns are fatal in 85 percent of cases, while those with pills are fatal in just 2 percent of cases, according to the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.
[…]
Suicidal acts are often prompted by a temporary surge of rage or despair, and most people who attempt them do not die. In a 2001 study of 13- to 34-year-olds in Houston who had attempted suicide but were saved by medical intervention, researchers from the C.D.C. found that, for more than two-thirds of them, the time that elapsed between deciding to act and taking action was an hour or less. The key to reducing fatalities, experts say, is to block access to lethal means when the suicidal feeling spikes.
[…]
Guns are used in more than half of all suicide fatalities, but account for just 1 percent of all self-harm injuries treated in hospital emergency rooms, a rough proxy for suicide attempts, Dr. Miller said. Overdoses, which account for about 80 percent of suicide attempts, are responsible for just 14 percent of fatalities.
The article you link contains a number of quotes by sources who have been roundly criticized, even within the scientific community, for their agenda-driven studies in this area - a fact not taken on in the article you link, which actually concerned a single suicide case in WY, with particular reference to controlling gun access by those who are suicidal and specifically stating that it was NOT intended to favor or discuss gun control in a general way.
One of the parties quoted was Dr. Mark Rosenberg, who has come under particular scrutiny because of that agenda, and the studies produced by NCIPC when he was there. (Which was some time ago, and the quotes used are likewise pretty old.) The survey methodology in use at the time for that particular subject was highly questionable, even within CDC’s own ranks. Congress ultimately pulled the funding for his preferred studies. Granted, Rosenberg never tried to claim gun owners were racists. He didn’t even try to claim they are particularly suicidal as a group - merely that when they do get into committing suicide, they are more successful at it. That’s it. Just, more successful at taking their own lives, no one else’s.
So, I don’t follow why that article is apropos to this thread?
2 Likes
[insert obligatory Princess Bride quote here]
1 Like
This seems like a fairly evident case of the “no true Scotsman” argument. It hasn’t been even two months since BB posted this article about, essentially, the dictionary definition of a “responsible gun owner”… who shot a student in his class.
4 Likes
The thing about correlation is that, though it is not equal to causation, it obviously might be an indication of causation in any individual instance. Even if there is no direct causal link, correlation might indicate that both have a common cause, which is what I suspect is going on here. People who are strongly motivated to own guns exhibit the same feelings of paranoia and victimization as do racists, by and large.
Define “extreme”. And as I recall, the primary motivation of the Tea Partiers is smaller and less intrusive government, and cutting unnecessary and wasteful spending. What exactly is “extreme” about that ?
The primary motivation of Tea Partiers is larger and more intrusive government, specifically engineered to support their own entitlements and prejudices.
It’s kind of like the anti-choicers, whose efforts actually cause MORE abortions rather than less.
Ignore what they say they’re saying; pay attention to the trajectory of their actions instead.
2 Likes
Originally, the Tea Party was a libertarian group that was for those things, but it has since been sort of commandeered by some rather nutty Republicans, in my opinion.
@anon67050589, I agree with you, but could you tell me more about this:
?
Perhaps on BizarroWorld, but this is the real world, You may recall the origin of the Tea Party: “Taxed Enough Already”. You’re conflating the Tea Party, a fiscally-conservative movement, with the Social Conservatives. And that comparison is lacking in any factual basis, but only in the ongoing narrative that all Conservatives are racist, knuckle-dragging Christo-fascists.
Tell me, how many Tea Party activists do you personally know ???
1 Like
Sure…
-
not allowing sex ed in schools, or requiring it to be abstinence-only, causing more unwanted pregnancies, at least some of which will end in abortion;
-
working against reasonable access to birth control at schools, bars, drug stores, etc., which results in more unwanted pregnancies, at least some of which will end in abortion;
-
refusing to dispense contraception such as Plan B (which does not, in fact, cause abortions) in pharmacies or at least keeping them off of the regular shelving, instead insisting they be prescription-only, which results in more unwanted pregnancies, at least some of which will end in abortion…
etc., etc.
3 Likes
Too many, unfortunately. And they all want their entitlements to stand, but more government put in place to make sure others are denied the same.
How much have we paid the Tea Partiers in Congress to refuse to do their jobs and instead purposely waste taxpayer money and the good standing of the U.S.?
I seem to recall that the Tea Partiers and such in the House DID their job and passed budgets. Now, as Senator Reid refused to let those budgets come to a floor vote in the Senate, THAT is not doing the job. Refusing to negotiate differences, THAT is not doing the job.
Ah, I see what you mean.
Most of the people I know of are people who have had police or professional training with weapons.
